Re: [gentoo-dev] License Interpretation

2008-08-23 Thread Richard Freeman

Donnie Berkholz wrote:


Have you heard of the term contributory infringement? It means you're 
helping someone else break copyright law.


Wouldn't somebody need to distribute the software to be in violation of 
copyright law?


If I in legal and fully-licensed manner install a program on my PC, and 
then I modify that program but don't distribute it, have I violated 
copyright law?  If the end-user doesn't violate copyright, then Gentoo 
couldn't be guilty of contributory infringement.


If I purchase a piece of artwork and then draw over it I haven't 
violated copyright.  If I make 10 copies of the resulting modified art 
and distribute them then I may have.  If I sell a magic marker and print 
on the box you can draw all over your expensive artwork on it I'm not 
contributing to copyright infringement.  If I write on the box you can 
draw all over your expensive artwork and sell it on ebay then I may be 
contributing to copyright infringement.


At least, that is how I see it...  :)



Re: [gentoo-dev] License Interpretation

2008-08-22 Thread Donnie Berkholz
On 21:07 Wed 20 Aug , Richard Freeman wrote:
 Gentoo distributes ebuilds - which are not the property of Adobe and are  
 not derivative works of any of Adobe's software.  A user who executes an  
 ebuild might obtain a copy of an Adobe product that Adobe distributes. A 
 user who executes an ebuild might create a derivative work of an Adobe  
 product, and users who use proprietary software are advised to consult  
 with lawyers as appropriate if they are concerned about the terms of  
 license agreements that they may or may not be parties to.

Have you heard of the term contributory infringement? It means you're 
helping someone else break copyright law.

The recent JMRI decision showed that at least free-software licenses are 
copyright licenses rather than contracts, and there's reasonable support 
that other types of licenses are the same. That means if we're enabling 
 encouraging our users to infringe copyrights or patents by providing 
ebuilds that do so, we may be guilty of the same.

IANAL and all that.

-- 
Thanks,
Donnie

Donnie Berkholz
Developer, Gentoo Linux
Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com


pgpFC5Pj8xsVs.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] License Interpretation

2008-08-22 Thread Jim Ramsay
Good news everyone!

This has become a non-issue, at least in the next version of flash
player[1].

Thanks again for all your input!

[1] http://blogs.adobe.com/penguin.swf/2008/08/curl_tradeoffs.html

-- 
Jim Ramsay
Gentoo Developer (rox/fluxbox/gkrellm)


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] License Interpretation

2008-08-21 Thread Sven Vermeulen
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 9:10 PM, Jim Ramsay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 2.5.1  You may not modify, adapt, translate or create derivative works
 based upon the Software. You may not reverse engineer, decompile,
 disassemble or otherwise attempt to discover the source code of the
 Software except to the extent you may be expressly permitted to
 decompile under applicable law, it is essential to do so in order to
 achieve operability of the Software with another software program, and
 you have first requested Adobe to provide the information necessary to
 achieve such operability and Adobe has not made such information
 available.

 I *think* I would be okay using this binary patch since:

 1) This is specifically to make it operable with libcurl.so.4
 2) I have (and others have) asked Adobe to recompile it with support
 for libcurl.so.4 instead of libcurl.so.3, but they have not done so (or
 responded to any of these requests, as far as I am aware).

Actually (and I'm no lawyer either), I think a binary patch isn't allowed:

 You may not modify, adapt, translate or create derivative works
 based upon the Software.

The rest of the paragraph is about obtaining (or trying to obtain) its
source code or application behavior, i.e. learn the program, not
modify it.

Wkr,
  Sven Vermeulen



[gentoo-dev] License Interpretation

2008-08-20 Thread Jim Ramsay
IANAL, and I'm sure most of us aren't either, but I would appreciate
some opinions on Bug https://bugs.gentoo.org/234542 and whether the
binary patch proposed there conflicts with section 2.5.1 of the license
agreement from Adobe:

http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/pdfs/Reader_Player_WWEULA-Combined-20060724_1430.pdf

Specifically, here is the passage I'm wondering about:

2.5.1  You may not modify, adapt, translate or create derivative works
based upon the Software. You may not reverse engineer, decompile,
disassemble or otherwise attempt to discover the source code of the
Software except to the extent you may be expressly permitted to
decompile under applicable law, it is essential to do so in order to
achieve operability of the Software with another software program, and
you have first requested Adobe to provide the information necessary to
achieve such operability and Adobe has not made such information
available.

I *think* I would be okay using this binary patch since:

1) This is specifically to make it operable with libcurl.so.4
2) I have (and others have) asked Adobe to recompile it with support
for libcurl.so.4 instead of libcurl.so.3, but they have not done so (or
responded to any of these requests, as far as I am aware).

Anyone care to weigh in, lawyer or not?

-- 
Jim Ramsay
Gentoo Developer (rox/fluxbox/gkrellm)


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] License Interpretation

2008-08-20 Thread Robert Bridge
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 15:10:18 -0400
Jim Ramsay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

IANAL, but the following line is critical:

 it is essential to do so in order to
 achieve operability of the Software with another software program, and
 you have first requested Adobe to provide the information necessary to
 achieve such operability and Adobe has not made such information
 available.

Given the situation as you outline it, I think the sub-section above
expressly permits the binary patch.

The request has been made, Adobe have not co-operated, that clause has
been invoked...

At least, that's how I would read it.

Rob.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] License Interpretation

2008-08-20 Thread Richard Freeman

Jim Ramsay wrote:

2.5.1  You may not modify, adapt, translate or create derivative works
based upon the Software. You may not reverse engineer, decompile,
disassemble or otherwise attempt to discover the source code of the
Software...

Anyone care to weigh in, lawyer or not?



Obviously I'm not a lawyer but I don't see an issue here.  I don't see 
that Gentoo or its developers are in any way a party to this agreement. 
 This is an agreement between Adobe and those who distribute its 
software.  Some argue that EULAs also apply to those who use software 
(which is debatable), but Gentoo does not use this software either (to 
my knowledge).


Gentoo distributes ebuilds - which are not the property of Adobe and are 
not derivative works of any of Adobe's software.  A user who executes an 
ebuild might obtain a copy of an Adobe product that Adobe distributes. 
A user who executes an ebuild might create a derivative work of an Adobe 
product, and users who use proprietary software are advised to consult 
with lawyers as appropriate if they are concerned about the terms of 
license agreements that they may or may not be parties to.


To me this is kind of like RiffTrax or similar along-side products that 
allow users to improve the experience of using a copyrighted work, but 
which are not themselves derivatives of copyrighted works.  If a user 
using one of these products happens to create a derivative work that is 
a matter between them and the copyright owner.  If such work is 
occurring without further distribution in an end-user context it is 
likely to be considered fair use.


Gentoo doesn't distribute software (well, except to the degree that we 
mirror it).  Gentoo makes it easier for users to use software that 
others distribute.  As a result, Gentoo stays fairly clear of copyright 
law, and we do make a good-faith effort to not mirror content which we 
are not licensed to redistribute.


That is my personal take on things like this, but again, I'm not a 
lawyer and others might not agree (makes no difference to me one way or 
another if you don't).  :)