Re: Non-free files in source packages?

[Simon Josefsson]

Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

>> Alternatively, you could try asking the relevant people if they'd grant
>> a more permissive license for the data table, in order to encourage the
>> wide and correct use of the standard surrounding it.
>
> That is a good suggestion.
>
> I have mailed the RFC authors now.  I'm not convinced they are the
> only copyright holders, but it could be a step in the right direction.

FYI, one of the authors replied and claimed he couldn't agree to any
license change, neither to make more permissive or more restrictive,
because ISOC owned the copyright.

So it seems that for libidn, my best bet seem to be that the tables
are not copyrightable, or that the IETF change their license.  For the
time being, I'm going with the first option (because that is what
[EMAIL PROTECTED] told me).  I can't tell if that is good enough for
Debian, though.

For other packages that incorporate non-trivial parts from RFCs, the
situation is worse, and it seems changing the IETF license is the only
solution.

Again, having Debian let the IETF know about its position on this
would be useful.

Thanks,
Simon

Re: Non-free files in source packages?

[Florian Weimer]

* Arnoud Engelfriet:

>> Unfortunately, German law does not take into account whether the
>> database owner is a German national or not.
>
> Can you give me a cite for that? I was under the impression that
> Germany had simply translated the Directive literally into national
> law. And from http://www.ivir.nl/files/database/#germany I find
> the German Act that put database rights into force. Page 1879, at
> http://www.jura.uni-sb.de/BGBl/TEIL1/1997/19971879.1.HTML
> states among other things:

Thanks for the correction.  You are right.

Re: Non-free files in source packages?

[Arnoud Engelfriet]

Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Arnoud Engelfriet:
> > Since they are US-based, ISOC cannot enjoy any database rights
> > until the US adopts their own database protection that's at least
> > as strong as what the EU Directive gives (art. 11 of the Directive).
> 
> Unfortunately, German law does not take into account whether the
> database owner is a German national or not.

Can you give me a cite for that? I was under the impression that
Germany had simply translated the Directive literally into national
law. And from http://www.ivir.nl/files/database/#germany I find
the German Act that put database rights into force. Page 1879, at
http://www.jura.uni-sb.de/BGBl/TEIL1/1997/19971879.1.HTML
states among other things:

   Schutz des Datenbankherstellers

   (1) Den nach ? 87b gew?hrten Schutz genie?en deutsche Staatsangeh?rige
   sowie juristische Personen mit Sitz im Geltungsbereich dieses
   Gesetzes. ? 120 Abs. 2 ist anzuwenden.

   (2) Die nach deutschem Recht oder dem Recht eines der in ? 120 Abs. 2
   Nr. 2 bezeichneten Staaten gegr?ndeten juristischen Personen ohne Sitz
   im Geltungsbereich dieses Gesetzes genie?en den nach ? 87b gew?hrten
   Schutz, wenn

   1. ihre Hauptverwaltung oder Hauptniederlassung sich im Gebiet eines
   der in ? 120 Abs. 2 Nr. 2 bezeichneten Staaten befindet oder

   2. ihr satzungsm??iger Sitz sich im Gebiet eines dieser Staaten
   befindet und ihre T?tigkeit eine tats?chliche Verbindung zur deutschen
   Wirtschaft oder zur Wirtschaft eines dieser Staaten aufweist.

   (3) Im ?brigen genie?en ausl?ndische Staatsangeh?rige sowie
   juristische Personen den Schutz nach dem Inhalt von Staatsvertr?gen
   sowie von Vereinbarungen, die die Europ?ische Gemeinschaft mit dritten
   Staaten schlie?t; diese Vereinbarungen werden vom Bundesministerium
   der Justiz im Bundesgesetzblatt bekanntgemacht.?

Perhaps I'm misreading this, but it does seem to restrict the
rights only to citizens and residents of Germany or another EU
member state. Item (3) is the same reciprocity clause as art. 11
of the Directive.

Arnoud

-- 
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/

Re: Non-free files in source packages?

[Florian Weimer]

* Arnoud Engelfriet:

> Florian Weimer wrote:
>> In Germany, I would be very surprised if it wasn't protected as a
>> database.  A significant effort was necessary to create the mapping,
>> and this is sufficient.
>
> But I'm not sure that the "producer" of this database (the RFC
> or the table in it) is a resident or national of a EU member state.
> It seems likely that ISOC would qualify as the producer, since
> it was their initiative and they carry the risk involved in creating 
> the RFC, right?
>
> Since they are US-based, ISOC cannot enjoy any database rights
> until the US adopts their own database protection that's at least
> as strong as what the EU Directive gives (art. 11 of the Directive).

Unfortunately, German law does not take into account whether the
database owner is a German national or not.

Re: Non-free files in source packages?

[Arnoud Engelfriet]

Florian Weimer wrote:
> In Germany, I would be very surprised if it wasn't protected as a
> database.  A significant effort was necessary to create the mapping,
> and this is sufficient.

But I'm not sure that the "producer" of this database (the RFC
or the table in it) is a resident or national of a EU member state.
It seems likely that ISOC would qualify as the producer, since
it was their initiative and they carry the risk involved in creating 
the RFC, right?

Since they are US-based, ISOC cannot enjoy any database rights
until the US adopts their own database protection that's at least
as strong as what the EU Directive gives (art. 11 of the Directive).

And I'm not aware of any non-EU jurisdiction that recognizes
database rights.

Arnoud

-- 
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/

Re: Non-free files in source packages?

[Florian Weimer]

* Matthew Palmer:

> On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 12:10:18AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * Lewis Jardine:
>> 
>> > In the case of data tables, in many jurisdictions, a mere collection of 
>> > facts is not copyrightable; the classic example is a telephone directory 
>> > (everything in it is an uncreative fact; that there are thousands of 
>> > them, which may have taken a lot of effort to gather, is immaterial).
>> 
>> Databases are already copyrighted in many jurisdictions.  AFAIK, this
>> is also on the agenda of U.S. lawmakers.
>
> As I understand it, Databases are protected by a separate EU directive,

And by applicable national law.

> which provides different (although to some degree similar) protections to
> that afforded by copyright.  Databases are *not* copyrightable in the same
> sense as a computer program or artistic work.

"Copyright" is a wildcard anyway when applied to countries with Droits
d'auteur because the concepts are somewhat different.  Others use the
the term "intellectual property rights", which is even more fuzzy, but
I don't think we should follow their example.

Re: Non-free files in source packages?

[Florian Weimer]

* Simon Josefsson:

>> It may be the case that the data could be plucked from the RFC and 
>> freely distributed, albeit only in places that don't allow 'sweat of the 
>> brow' copyrights.
>
> I know I answered this already, but I thought I'd add that
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] suggested that the tables from RFC 3454 

IIRC, RFC 3454 contains Nameprep.

> might not be copyrightable, because they lack the creativity
> required for copyright.

In Germany, I would be very surprised if it wasn't protected as a
database.  A significant effort was necessary to create the mapping,
and this is sufficient.

The U.S. lacks database protection laws, but it's pretty unique in
this regard.

Re: Non-free files in source packages?

[Andrew Suffield]

On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 01:11:11AM +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Lewis Jardine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > In the case of data tables, in many jurisdictions, a mere collection of 
> > facts is not copyrightable; the classic example is a telephone directory 
> > (everything in it is an uncreative fact; that there are thousands of 
> > them, which may have taken a lot of effort to gather, is immaterial).
> >
> > It may be the case that the data could be plucked from the RFC and 
> > freely distributed, albeit only in places that don't allow 'sweat of the 
> > brow' copyrights.
> 
> I know I answered this already, but I thought I'd add that
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] suggested that the tables from RFC 3454 might not be
> copyrightable, because they lack the creativity required for
> copyright.  So to take the example of libidn, which extract tables
> from 3454, this could mean it could stay in Debian anyway, I think.
> They mentioned 'sweat of the brow' though.  Which jurisdictions allow
> for that kind of copyright?

Pretty much everybody but the US, unfortunately. This is lawyer-bait,
we can't really afford to go there.

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'  |
   `- -><-  |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Non-free files in source packages?

[Matthew Palmer]

On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 12:10:18AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Lewis Jardine:
> 
> > In the case of data tables, in many jurisdictions, a mere collection of 
> > facts is not copyrightable; the classic example is a telephone directory 
> > (everything in it is an uncreative fact; that there are thousands of 
> > them, which may have taken a lot of effort to gather, is immaterial).
> 
> Databases are already copyrighted in many jurisdictions.  AFAIK, this
> is also on the agenda of U.S. lawmakers.

As I understand it, Databases are protected by a separate EU directive,
which provides different (although to some degree similar) protections to
that afforded by copyright.  Databases are *not* copyrightable in the same
sense as a computer program or artistic work.

- Matt


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Non-free files in source packages?

[Simon Josefsson]

Lewis Jardine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> In the case of data tables, in many jurisdictions, a mere collection of 
> facts is not copyrightable; the classic example is a telephone directory 
> (everything in it is an uncreative fact; that there are thousands of 
> them, which may have taken a lot of effort to gather, is immaterial).
>
> It may be the case that the data could be plucked from the RFC and 
> freely distributed, albeit only in places that don't allow 'sweat of the 
> brow' copyrights.

I know I answered this already, but I thought I'd add that
[EMAIL PROTECTED] suggested that the tables from RFC 3454 might not be
copyrightable, because they lack the creativity required for
copyright.  So to take the example of libidn, which extract tables
from 3454, this could mean it could stay in Debian anyway, I think.
They mentioned 'sweat of the brow' though.  Which jurisdictions allow
for that kind of copyright?  Do Debian worry about those
jurisdictions?

Thanks,
Simon

Re: Non-free files in source packages?

[Florian Weimer]

* Lewis Jardine:

> In the case of data tables, in many jurisdictions, a mere collection of 
> facts is not copyrightable; the classic example is a telephone directory 
> (everything in it is an uncreative fact; that there are thousands of 
> them, which may have taken a lot of effort to gather, is immaterial).

Databases are already copyrighted in many jurisdictions.  AFAIK, this
is also on the agenda of U.S. lawmakers.

Re: Non-free files in source packages?

[Francesco Poli]

On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 01:28:35 +0100 Simon Josefsson wrote:

> I believe it would be useful for the Debian community to let the IETF
> know about Debian's position on this.  Preparing a statement and
> posting it to the IETF IPR working group seem appropriate, and would
> be appreciated.

I agree: we should try and persuade them to release DFSG-free RFCs.

-- 
  Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday.
..
  Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4


pgpifpHpz16wI.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Non-free files in source packages?

[Simon Josefsson]

Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 12:04:44AM +, Lewis Jardine wrote:
>> In the case of data tables, in many jurisdictions, a mere collection of 
>> facts is not copyrightable; the classic example is a telephone directory 
>> (everything in it is an uncreative fact; that there are thousands of 
>> them, which may have taken a lot of effort to gather, is immaterial).
>> 
>> It may be the case that the data could be plucked from the RFC and 
>> freely distributed, albeit only in places that don't allow 'sweat of the 
>> brow' copyrights.
>
> Alternatively, you could try asking the relevant people if they'd grant
> a more permissive license for the data table, in order to encourage the
> wide and correct use of the standard surrounding it.

That is a good suggestion.

I have mailed the RFC authors now.  I'm not convinced they are the
only copyright holders, but it could be a step in the right direction.

Thanks,
Simon

Re: Non-free files in source packages?

[Simon Josefsson]

Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

>> Do Debian consider it problematic if source packages include, say,
>> RFCs, which, if I understand correctly, are considered non-free by
>> Debian otherwise?
>
> Yes. As soon as such cases are found by somebody who knows and cares,
> bugs will be filed, and the maintainer will have to remove those data
> from the .orig.tar.gz we distribute.

Post-sarge, I assume?

>> Otherwise, how do Debian handle the situation when the RFC is parsed,
>> and become part of the implementation?
>
> Such software is not DFSG-free and will have to go into non-free at
> best...
>
>> In other words, where the GPL require that you distribute the RFC
>> because it is the preferred "source code" to make modifications to.
>
> ... but if the rest of the code is GPL-licensed, the net result is
> that the package cannot be legally distributed at all (which is
> completely independent of the DFSG).

This interpretation appears to be the consensus in the free software
world.  Thanks for re-inforcing it.

Thanks,
Simon

Re: Non-free files in source packages?

[Simon Josefsson]

Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 12:11:20AM +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> Have Debian evaluated the new RFC copying conditions?  Quoting
>>  section 3.3:
>> 
>>a. To the extent that a Contribution or any portion thereof is
>>   protected by copyright and other rights of authorship, the
>>   Contributor, and each named co-Contributor, and the organization
>>   he or she represents or is sponsored by (if any) grant a
>>   perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, royalty-free, world-wide
>>   right and license to the ISOC and the IETF under all intellectual
>   
>
> A license that is not even granted to us, let alone the rest of the
> world, is of no use to us. If this is really the only license provided
> then we can't even redistribute the things - only the ISOC and IETF
> can do that. It appears that rfc 3667 does not refer to us at all (see
> section 7.5).
>
> Somebody should check whether older rfcs have a similar problem. Did
> anybody actually grant a license to *us* to distribute them at all?

I agree with you.

I have been trying to illuminate the IETF about that part of the
license, with little success.

As far as I can tell, members of the IETF IPR working group doesn't
understand what RFC 3667 is saying, as illustrated by the RFC editor's
summary of RFC 3667 in [1], that paint a completely different picture,
or they just don't care.

I'm told the FSF lawyers are looking at this, and the preliminary
message I got, was that they agree with our interpretation.

I believe it would be useful for the Debian community to let the IETF
know about Debian's position on this.  Preparing a statement and
posting it to the IETF IPR working group seem appropriate, and would
be appreciated.

Thanks,
Simon

[1] http://www.rfc-editor.org/copyright.html

Re: Non-free files in source packages?

[Simon Josefsson]

Lewis Jardine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Simon Josefsson wrote:
>
>> Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> 
>>>On Wed, 05 Jan 2005, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>>>
Otherwise, how do Debian handle the situation when the RFC is
parsed, and become part of the implementation?  In other words,
where the GPL require that you distribute the RFC because it is the
preferred "source code" to make modifications to.
>>>
>>>The above situation is one where the work is not distributable at all
>>>until the depenency on the RFC is removed, as the RFC itself cannot be
>>>distributed under the terms of the GPL.
>> That is a clear answer.  Alas, in some situations, it may be
>> difficult
>> to remove that dependency.  For example, Libidn derive data tables
>> from RFC 3454.
>
> In the case of data tables, in many jurisdictions, a mere collection of 
> facts is not copyrightable; the classic example is a telephone directory 
> (everything in it is an uncreative fact; that there are thousands of 
> them, which may have taken a lot of effort to gather, is immaterial).
>
> It may be the case that the data could be plucked from the RFC and 
> freely distributed, albeit only in places that don't allow 'sweat of the 
> brow' copyrights.

There may be a flaw in comparing the RFC 3454 tables with a telephone
directory:

The tables have been carefully composed, as a sub-set of the full
Unicode database.

The creative process may be the selection of characters that have
certain properties, which are to be handled as explained in the
document.  Finding the final tables took a long time.

I think it could be argued that these tables, composed they way they
were, have an artistic value, and hence copyrightable.

Thanks,
Simon

Re: Non-free files in source packages?

[Glenn Maynard]

On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 12:04:44AM +, Lewis Jardine wrote:
> In the case of data tables, in many jurisdictions, a mere collection of 
> facts is not copyrightable; the classic example is a telephone directory 
> (everything in it is an uncreative fact; that there are thousands of 
> them, which may have taken a lot of effort to gather, is immaterial).
> 
> It may be the case that the data could be plucked from the RFC and 
> freely distributed, albeit only in places that don't allow 'sweat of the 
> brow' copyrights.

Alternatively, you could try asking the relevant people if they'd grant
a more permissive license for the data table, in order to encourage the
wide and correct use of the standard surrounding it.

-- 
Glenn Maynard

Re: Non-free files in source packages?

[Lewis Jardine]

Simon Josefsson wrote:


Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:



On Wed, 05 Jan 2005, Simon Josefsson wrote:


Otherwise, how do Debian handle the situation when the RFC is
parsed, and become part of the implementation?  In other words,
where the GPL require that you distribute the RFC because it is the
preferred "source code" to make modifications to.


The above situation is one where the work is not distributable at all
until the depenency on the RFC is removed, as the RFC itself cannot be
distributed under the terms of the GPL.



That is a clear answer.  Alas, in some situations, it may be difficult
to remove that dependency.  For example, Libidn derive data tables
from RFC 3454.


In the case of data tables, in many jurisdictions, a mere collection of 
facts is not copyrightable; the classic example is a telephone directory 
(everything in it is an uncreative fact; that there are thousands of 
them, which may have taken a lot of effort to gather, is immaterial).


It may be the case that the data could be plucked from the RFC and 
freely distributed, albeit only in places that don't allow 'sweat of the 
brow' copyrights.


--
Lewis Jardine
IANAL, IANADD

Re: Non-free files in source packages?

[Andrew Suffield]

On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 12:11:20AM +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Have Debian evaluated the new RFC copying conditions?  Quoting
>  section 3.3:
> 
>a. To the extent that a Contribution or any portion thereof is
>   protected by copyright and other rights of authorship, the
>   Contributor, and each named co-Contributor, and the organization
>   he or she represents or is sponsored by (if any) grant a
>   perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, royalty-free, world-wide
>   right and license to the ISOC and the IETF under all intellectual
  

A license that is not even granted to us, let alone the rest of the
world, is of no use to us. If this is really the only license provided
then we can't even redistribute the things - only the ISOC and IETF
can do that. It appears that rfc 3667 does not refer to us at all (see
section 7.5).

Somebody should check whether older rfcs have a similar problem. Did
anybody actually grant a license to *us* to distribute them at all?

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'  |
   `- -><-  |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Non-free files in source packages?

[Henning Makholm]

Scripsit Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> Are there any policies surrounding what may go into the source
> packages, that Debian distribute, as far as license is concerned?

Yes. Everything in our source packages have to be DFSG-free, just as
everything in binary packages does.

> Do Debian consider it problematic if source packages include, say,
> RFCs, which, if I understand correctly, are considered non-free by
> Debian otherwise?

Yes. As soon as such cases are found by somebody who knows and cares,
bugs will be filed, and the maintainer will have to remove those data
from the .orig.tar.gz we distribute.

> Otherwise, how do Debian handle the situation when the RFC is parsed,
> and become part of the implementation?

Such software is not DFSG-free and will have to go into non-free at
best...

> In other words, where the GPL require that you distribute the RFC
> because it is the preferred "source code" to make modifications to.

... but if the rest of the code is GPL-licensed, the net result is
that the package cannot be legally distributed at all (which is
completely independent of the DFSG).

-- 
Henning Makholm   "The great secret, known to internists and
 learned early in marriage by internists' wives, but
   still hidden from the general public, is that most things get
 better by themselves. Most things, in fact, are better by morning."

Re: Non-free files in source packages?

[Simon Josefsson]

Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Wed, 05 Jan 2005, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> Are there any policies surrounding what may go into the source
>> packages, that Debian distribute, as far as license is concerned?
>
> Yes. The source packages for things that are in main and contrib must
> satisfy the DFSG.

Thanks.

>> Do Debian consider it problematic if source packages include, say,
>> RFCs, which, if I understand correctly, are considered non-free by
>> Debian otherwise?
>
> Post-sarge, RFCs with the traditional "no modification" license will
> be non-free and will need to be moved from the orig.tar.gz and/or the
> diff.gz.

To be perfectly clear, by the "no modification" license, are you
referring to the following license?  This was copied from RFC 3454.

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  All Rights Reserved.

   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
   included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
   English.

   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
   BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
   HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
   MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Have Debian evaluated the new RFC copying conditions?  Quoting
 section 3.3:

   a. To the extent that a Contribution or any portion thereof is
  protected by copyright and other rights of authorship, the
  Contributor, and each named co-Contributor, and the organization
  he or she represents or is sponsored by (if any) grant a
  perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, royalty-free, world-wide
  right and license to the ISOC and the IETF under all intellectual
  property rights in the Contribution:

  (A)  to copy, publish, display and distribute the Contribution as
   part of the IETF Standards Process or in an Internet-Draft,

  (B)  to prepare or allow the preparation of translations of the
   Contribution into languages other than English,

  (C)  unless explicitly disallowed in the notices contained in a
   Contribution [as per Section 5.2 below], to prepare
   derivative works (other than translations) that are based on
   or incorporate all or part of the Contribution, or comment
   upon it, within the IETF Standards Process.  The license to
   such derivative works not granting the ISOC and the IETF any
   more rights than the license to the original Contribution,

  (D)  to reproduce any trademarks, service marks or trade names
   which are included in the Contribution solely in connection
   with the reproduction, distribution or publication of the
   Contribution and derivative works thereof as permitted by
   this paragraph.  When reproducing Contributions, the IETF
   will preserve trademark and service mark identifiers used by
   the Contributor of the Contribution, including (TM) and (R)
   where appropriate, and

  (E)  to extract, copy, publish, display, distribute, modify and
   incorporate into other works, for any purpose (and not
   limited to use within the IETF Standards Process) any
   executable code or code fragments that are included in any
   IETF Document (such as MIB and PIB modules), subject to the
   requirements of Section 5 (it also being understood that the
   licenses granted under this paragraph (E) shall not be deemed
   to grant any right under any patent, patent application or
   other similar intellectual property right disclosed by the
   Contributor under [IETF IPR]).

   b. The Contributor grants the IETF and ISOC permission to reference
  the name(s) and address(es) of the Contributor(s) and of the
  organization(s) s/he represents or is sponsored by (if any).

>> Otherwise, how do Debian 

Re: Non-free files in source packages?

[Don Armstrong]

On Wed, 05 Jan 2005, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Are there any policies surrounding what may go into the source
> packages, that Debian distribute, as far as license is concerned?

Yes. The source packages for things that are in main and contrib must
satisfy the DFSG.
 
> Do Debian consider it problematic if source packages include, say,
> RFCs, which, if I understand correctly, are considered non-free by
> Debian otherwise?

Post-sarge, RFCs with the traditional "no modification" license will
be non-free and will need to be moved from the orig.tar.gz and/or the
diff.gz.

> Otherwise, how do Debian handle the situation when the RFC is
> parsed, and become part of the implementation?  In other words,
> where the GPL require that you distribute the RFC because it is the
> preferred "source code" to make modifications to.

The above situation is one where the work is not distributable at all
until the depenency on the RFC is removed, as the RFC itself cannot be
distributed under the terms of the GPL.


Don Armstrong

-- 
If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its
freedom; and the irony of it is that if it is comfort or money it
values more, it will lose that, too.
 -- W. Somerset Maugham

http://www.donarmstrong.com  http://rzlab.ucr.edu


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature