Re: a desperate request for licence metadata

[Wouter Verhelst]

On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 06:13:57PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > I wrote:
> >> In some jurisdictions lending is an exclusive right of the copyright
> >> owner.
> >
> > Thomas Bushnell writes:
> >> Can you be specific with references please?
> >
> > 
> 
> Well, one more anti-freedom law from Europe.  Shame on them, but I
> should not be surprised.  :(

It's only big and organized lending (i.e., public libraries etc.) which
is restricted. Nobody will sue me for lending out a book to a friend...

-- 
The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the
pavement is precisely one bananosecond


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian OpenSolaris port, exchange with Sun folks in webforum/MailingList

[Sven Luther]

On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 02:48:15PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 10:47:59PM +1000, Paul TBBle Hampson wrote:
> > > These two do not appear to be compatible (unless you think a license
> > > can be "free" with a venue choice that you do not consider "sane"), so
> > > I must have misunderstood one of them. Could you elaborate, please?
> 
> > If we replace "sane" with "enforcable" (which is what I think the OP was
> > getting at) then they are in fact compatible. A license does not become
> > non-free if it contains unenforcable components, unless it contains a 
> > component
> > that specifies that any unenforcable clause voids the whole license.
> 
> But choice-of-venue clauses, at least in contracts, *are* enforceable in
> some significant jurisdictions -- like the one which hosts
> ftp-master.debian.org.
> 
> So their freeness is still an issue.

I get the feeling that it is not the freeness of them which is an issue, they
don't really make the software more or less free after all, since they enter
in account only if the licence is broken, and we don't really can consider
freeness definitions based on more or less broken local juridictions.

Now, that doesn't mean we have to accept them, but we would reject them not
based on the DFSG, but based on the risk they bring to our infrastructure and
mirror network and ...

Not sure if there is a precedent over this distinction, but maybe this is the
same as how we handle patented code, crypto stuff and sensitive stuff like
video and music issues.

Friendly,

Sven Luther


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian OpenSolaris port, exchange with Sun folks in webforum/MailingList

[Steve Langasek]

On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 10:14:50AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 02:48:15PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 10:47:59PM +1000, Paul TBBle Hampson wrote:
> > > > These two do not appear to be compatible (unless you think a license
> > > > can be "free" with a venue choice that you do not consider "sane"), so
> > > > I must have misunderstood one of them. Could you elaborate, please?

> > > If we replace "sane" with "enforcable" (which is what I think the OP was
> > > getting at) then they are in fact compatible. A license does not become
> > > non-free if it contains unenforcable components, unless it contains a 
> > > component
> > > that specifies that any unenforcable clause voids the whole license.

> > But choice-of-venue clauses, at least in contracts, *are* enforceable in
> > some significant jurisdictions -- like the one which hosts
> > ftp-master.debian.org.

> > So their freeness is still an issue.

> I get the feeling that it is not the freeness of them which is an issue, they
> don't really make the software more or less free after all, since they enter
> in account only if the licence is broken

No, they enter into consideration *whenever the copyright holder decides
to sue you*.  There have even been cases of one-time Linux kernel
contributors flipping out and suing members of the community -- filing
suit, of course, in their own home jurisdiction, where it's cheap for
them to flood the courts with SLAPP filings.  Do we really think it's a
good idea to approve of giving copyright holders extra leverage for such
lawsuits in their license, and just hope that none of these copyrights
ever wind up in the hands of a hostile entity?

> , and we don't really can consider freeness definitions based on more
> or less broken local juridictions.

In the past, when we have discussed broken jurisdictions, it has been in
the context of licenses which don't go far enough to spell out freedoms
that are taken for granted.  When we talk about choice of venue clauses,
however, this is a clause which has been actively included in the
license and which is (IMHO) non-free in intent.  I don't think we should
accept such licenses as free just because they don't *succeed* in being
non-free in all jurisdictions.

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://www.debian.org/


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Debian OpenSolaris port, exchange with Sun folks in webforum/MailingList

[Sven Luther]

On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 02:06:12AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 10:14:50AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 02:48:15PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 10:47:59PM +1000, Paul TBBle Hampson wrote:
> > > > > These two do not appear to be compatible (unless you think a license
> > > > > can be "free" with a venue choice that you do not consider "sane"), so
> > > > > I must have misunderstood one of them. Could you elaborate, please?
> 
> > > > If we replace "sane" with "enforcable" (which is what I think the OP was
> > > > getting at) then they are in fact compatible. A license does not become
> > > > non-free if it contains unenforcable components, unless it contains a 
> > > > component
> > > > that specifies that any unenforcable clause voids the whole license.
> 
> > > But choice-of-venue clauses, at least in contracts, *are* enforceable in
> > > some significant jurisdictions -- like the one which hosts
> > > ftp-master.debian.org.
> 
> > > So their freeness is still an issue.
> 
> > I get the feeling that it is not the freeness of them which is an issue, 
> > they
> > don't really make the software more or less free after all, since they enter
> > in account only if the licence is broken
> 
> No, they enter into consideration *whenever the copyright holder decides
> to sue you*.  There have even been cases of one-time Linux kernel
> contributors flipping out and suing members of the community -- filing
> suit, of course, in their own home jurisdiction, where it's cheap for
> them to flood the courts with SLAPP filings.  Do we really think it's a
> good idea to approve of giving copyright holders extra leverage for such
> lawsuits in their license, and just hope that none of these copyrights
> ever wind up in the hands of a hostile entity?

Sure, but this has not to do if the software is free or not. But other
considerations which have nothing to do with freedom or not.

> > , and we don't really can consider freeness definitions based on more
> > or less broken local juridictions.
> 
> In the past, when we have discussed broken jurisdictions, it has been in
> the context of licenses which don't go far enough to spell out freedoms
> that are taken for granted.  When we talk about choice of venue clauses,
> however, this is a clause which has been actively included in the
> license and which is (IMHO) non-free in intent.  I don't think we should
> accept such licenses as free just because they don't *succeed* in being
> non-free in all jurisdictions.

I agree that we should not accept such licence, but not because they are not
free :)

And BTW, i am getting over-flamed on the opensolaris lists because of that, by
single individuals even, so we will see.

Friendly,

Sven Luther


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Re: Which CD is a package on?

[Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo]

On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 05:21:17PM -0400, Mike O'Connor wrote:
> >  (00:58:29) *cheal:* cd contents
> > (00:58:29) *dpkg:* To find out what is on what cd, download the .jigdo 
> > template, and zless fooimage.jigdo. In the [Parts] section you will see 
> > the list of packages that are contained in the cd. stew has created a 
> > searchable index of the sarge cds: http://vireo.org/~stew/jigdo 
> > 
> > 
> > stew is a regular on #debian. I just tested the interface quickly, and 
> > it's not bad. While the interface doesn't point to the code used, I 
> > guess he would accept to give anyone his code if asked by email. Perhaps 
> > a DD will want to use the code instead of starting from scratch.
> > In any case, I think work on this issue would have a high use/effort 
> > ratio ;)
> > It will be great if building an index can be part of the CD build process.
> > 
> here's a url to the code I wrote: 
> 
> http://vireo.org/~stew/jigdoindex.tar.gz
> 
> Its a perl module that inserts rows into a table and a php page that
> searches and displays results. quick, dirty, and working...
> 
> Feel free to use the code, and let me know how I could help.

Here's another engine for searching jigdo files made by Richard Atterer:
http://atterer.net/jigdo/jigdo-search.php

AFAIR it's going to be included on Debian webpages.

regards
fEnIo

-- 
  ,''`.  Bartosz Fenski | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | pgp:0x13fefc40 | irc:fEnIo
 : :' :   32-050 Skawina - Glowackiego 3/15 - w. malopolskie - Poland
 `. `'   phone:+48602383548 | proud Debian maintainer and user
   `-  http://skawina.eu.org | jid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | rlu:172001


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

snmpkit stuck in unstable ?

[A Mennucc]

hi people 

(maybe I do not properly understand how the transition unstable -> testing 
goes , but...)

my packages from source  libprinterconf, see
http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/testing.pl?package=libprinterconf
are waiting for snmpkit to go into testing;

at the same time, 
my packages from source snmpkit  seem ready, are  quite old, see
http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/testing.pl?package=snmpkit
but still they are not going into testing.

what is happening?

a.

ps: please CC me

-- 
Andrea Mennucc
 "Ukn ow,Ifina llyfixe dmysp acebar.ohwh atthef"


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: snmpkit stuck in unstable ?

[Andreas Barth]

* A Mennucc ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050908 13:39]:
> (maybe I do not properly understand how the transition unstable -> testing 
> goes , but...)
> 
> my packages from source  libprinterconf, see
> http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/testing.pl?package=libprinterconf
> are waiting for snmpkit to go into testing;
> 
> at the same time, 
> my packages from source snmpkit  seem ready, are  quite old, see
> http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/testing.pl?package=snmpkit
> but still they are not going into testing.
> 
> what is happening?

I'd say your package is part of the c++-abi-transition.


Cheers,
Andi


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

email error message from d.o may be better

[A Mennucc]

hi

I sent an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] instead of 
debian-68k@lists.debian.org ; the error message that I got
was strange (in particular, the two lines 
  procmail: Error while writing to "DeadLog"
  procmail: Error while writing to "/var/mail/debian"
look as if there is a misconfiguration somewhere );
moreover, it would be better if the error was akin to
"no such user".

Hope someone may find some time to look into it
(altoh I ack that it is a minor minor problem)

(btw, I do not know if this list is the best place to report
this - any suggestions on where I should report this?)

a.

- Forwarded message from Mail Delivery System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -

From: Mail Delivery System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender

This message was created automatically by mail delivery software (Exim).

A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed:

  pipe to |/usr/bin/procmail -p .procmail/rc.split
generated by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Child process of address_pipe transport returned 73 (could mean can't 
create output file) from command:
/usr/bin/procmail

The following text was generated during the delivery attempt:

-- pipe to |/usr/bin/procmail -p .procmail/rc.split
   generated by [EMAIL PROTECTED] --

procmail: Error while writing to "DeadLog"
procmail: Error while writing to "/var/mail/debian"

-- This is a copy of the message, including all the headers. --

Received: from cibs10.sns.it (reed.sns.it) [192.167.206.30] 
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1E6pjV-00024M-00; Sun, 21 Aug 2005 08:19:29 -0500
Received: from [192.167.206.31] (helo=sns.it)
by reed.sns.it with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
id 1E6pkn-0006wk-00
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 21 Aug 2005 15:20:49 +0200
X-Virus-Scanned: by cgpav
Received: from [192.84.155.215] (HELO tonelli)
  by sns.it (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.8)
  with ESMTP id 36570565 for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sun, 21 Aug 2005 15:21:04 +0200
Received: by tonelli (Postfix, from userid 1013)
id 1EA0D176C1; Sun, 21 Aug 2005 15:19:28 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 15:19:28 +0200
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:  zope2.7 failed to build
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
[omitted]

- End forwarded message -

-- 
Andrea Mennucc
 "Ukn ow,Ifina llyfixe dmysp acebar.ohwh atthef"


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: snmpkit stuck in unstable ?

[A Mennucc]

Andreas Barth wrote:


* A Mennucc ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050908 13:39]:
 

(maybe I do not properly understand how the transition unstable -> testing 
goes , but...)


my packages from source  libprinterconf, see
http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/testing.pl?package=libprinterconf
are waiting for snmpkit to go into testing;

at the same time, 
my packages from source snmpkit  seem ready, are  quite old, see

http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/testing.pl?package=snmpkit
but still they are not going into testing.

what is happening?
   



I'd say your package is part of the c++-abi-transition.

 

sorry... since the dependency on c++ libraries is not listed in the 
above excuses, I forgot about it


a.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: a desperate request for licence metadata

[Paul TBBle Hampson]

(I am not a lawyer, but I play one on TV)

On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 05:11:29PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

>> Thomas Bushnell writes:
>>> Not quite correct.  You are buing not just the right to read it; you are
>>> also buying the physical copy, and you may do with it what you want: loan
>>> it, rent it...

>> In some jurisdictions lending is an exclusive right of the copyright
>> owner.

> Can you be specific with references please?

As far as commercial rental:

COPYRIGHT ACT 1968 - SECT 31 [1] (Australian)
paragraph 1c (for literary, musical or dramatic works reproduced as sound 
recordings)
paragraph 1d (for computer programs)
(Subsections 3 through 7 then qualify the above two paragraphs. ^_^)

So not books, but it looks like paragraphs 6a and 7a suggest that "Copyright
(World Trade Organization Amendments) Act 1994" might have required these two
items to be added as part of WTO negotiations...

So it might be more prevalent than first thought. ^_^

In fact, the agreement from the Uruguay WTO round in 1994 on TRIPS [2] Article
11 requires member countries to include commercial rental rights as copyright
on software, and cinematographic works, with exceptions for the latter, and
Article 14 paragraph 4 seems to extend the same rules for cinematographic works
to phonographic works.

And [3] suggests that the US also has such laws regarding computer programs on
the books, and this agreement caused them to remove a sunset clause from them.

[1] http://bar.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s31.html 
[2] http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/27-trips_04_e.htm#1
[3] 
http://www.ladas.com/BULLETINS/1994/1194Bulletin/US_GATTTRIPSImplementation.html

(Possibly, you meant to refer to books specifically. But I figure this is
relevant to this particular discussion.)

-- 
---
Paul "TBBle" Hampson, MCSE
8th year CompSci/Asian Studies student, ANU
The Boss, Bubblesworth Pty Ltd (ABN: 51 095 284 361)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

"No survivors? Then where do the stories come from I wonder?"
-- Capt. Jack Sparrow, "Pirates of the Caribbean"

License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.1/au/
---


pgpRFdMtQMF0Y.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: email error message from d.o may be better

[Adeodato Simó]

* A Mennucc [Thu, 08 Sep 2005 13:45:51 +0200]:

> hi

  Hi,

> I sent an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] instead of 
> debian-68k@lists.debian.org ; the error message that I got
> was strange (in particular, the two lines 
>   procmail: Error while writing to "DeadLog"
>   procmail: Error while writing to "/var/mail/debian"
> look as if there is a misconfiguration somewhere );
> moreover, it would be better if the error was akin to
> "no such user".

  The error is more like, "the mailbox where I would normally deliver
  mail to unknown [EMAIL PROTECTED] addresses, namely, master:~debian/DeadLog,
  is 2GB now and I can't add anything more to it." If it would have been
  smaller, your mail would've been silently discarded.

-- 
Adeodato Simó
EM: asp16 [ykwim] alu.ua.es | PK: DA6AE621
 
There is no man so good who, were he to submit all his thoughts to the
laws, would not deserve hanging ten times in his life
-- Michel de Montaigne


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

[Sven Luther]

On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 02:06:12AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 10:14:50AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 02:48:15PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 10:47:59PM +1000, Paul TBBle Hampson wrote:
> > > > > These two do not appear to be compatible (unless you think a license
> > > > > can be "free" with a venue choice that you do not consider "sane"), so
> > > > > I must have misunderstood one of them. Could you elaborate, please?
> 
> > > > If we replace "sane" with "enforcable" (which is what I think the OP was
> > > > getting at) then they are in fact compatible. A license does not become
> > > > non-free if it contains unenforcable components, unless it contains a 
> > > > component
> > > > that specifies that any unenforcable clause voids the whole license.
> 
> > > But choice-of-venue clauses, at least in contracts, *are* enforceable in
> > > some significant jurisdictions -- like the one which hosts
> > > ftp-master.debian.org.
> 
> > > So their freeness is still an issue.
> 
> > I get the feeling that it is not the freeness of them which is an issue, 
> > they
> > don't really make the software more or less free after all, since they enter
> > in account only if the licence is broken
> 
> No, they enter into consideration *whenever the copyright holder decides
> to sue you*.  There have even been cases of one-time Linux kernel
> contributors flipping out and suing members of the community -- filing
> suit, of course, in their own home jurisdiction, where it's cheap for
> them to flood the courts with SLAPP filings.  Do we really think it's a
> good idea to approve of giving copyright holders extra leverage for such
> lawsuits in their license, and just hope that none of these copyrights
> ever wind up in the hands of a hostile entity?
> 
> > , and we don't really can consider freeness definitions based on more
> > or less broken local juridictions.
> 
> In the past, when we have discussed broken jurisdictions, it has been in
> the context of licenses which don't go far enough to spell out freedoms
> that are taken for granted.  When we talk about choice of venue clauses,
> however, this is a clause which has been actively included in the
> license and which is (IMHO) non-free in intent.  I don't think we should
> accept such licenses as free just because they don't *succeed* in being
> non-free in all jurisdictions.

Notice that we already accepted a CDDLed program in debian, namely the star
packages which comes with this clause :

9. MISCELLANEOUS.

This License represents the complete agreement concerning subject
matter hereof.  If any provision of this License is held to be
unenforceable, such provision shall be reformed only to the extent
necessary to make it enforceable.  This License shall be governed
by the law of the jurisdiction specified in a notice contained
within the Original Software (except to the extent applicable law,
if any, provides otherwise), excluding such jurisdiction's
conflict-of-law provisions.  Any litigation relating to this
License shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the courts located
in the jurisdiction and venue specified in a notice contained
within the Original Software, with the losing party responsible
for costs, including, without limitation, court costs and
reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses.  The application of the
United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale
of Goods is expressly excluded.  Any law or regulation which
provides that the language of a contract shall be construed
against the drafter shall not apply to this License.  You agree
that You alone are responsible for compliance with the United
States export administration regulations (and the export control
laws and regulation of any other countries) when You use,
distribute or otherwise make available any Covered Software.

So, i wonder why it was accepted, if it was non-free. But maybe we just passed
it up silently and didn't notice ? Who was the ftp-master responsible for
letting this one enter the archive, and can he comment on this ?

Friendly,

Sven Luther  


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

[Joerg Jaspert]

Sven Luther schrieb:

> Notice that we already accepted a CDDLed program in debian, namely the star
> packages which comes with this clause :

Wrong.

> So, i wonder why it was accepted, if it was non-free. But maybe we just passed
> it up silently and didn't notice ? Who was the ftp-master responsible for
> letting this one enter the archive, and can he comment on this ?

Please look up facts before you go this road.

http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/s/star/star_1.4a17-3/star.copyright

Took about ten seconds to find out it was GPL before upstream relicensed
and debian maint just copied that.
Write a bug against the package if its non-free is your option now.

-- 
bye Joerg


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

[Sven Luther]

On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 03:10:56PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> Sven Luther schrieb:
> 
> > Notice that we already accepted a CDDLed program in debian, namely the star
> > packages which comes with this clause :
> 
> Wrong.

Well, i installed the package in sid (star 1.5a60-2), and looked at
/usr/share/doc/star/copyright and it was indeed the CDDL version 1.

> > So, i wonder why it was accepted, if it was non-free. But maybe we just 
> > passed
> > it up silently and didn't notice ? Who was the ftp-master responsible for
> > letting this one enter the archive, and can he comment on this ?
> 
> Please look up facts before you go this road.

Yeah, well, i did an apt-get install star and looked at the copyright file, so
i am not sure what facts i have to believe then.

> http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/s/star/star_1.4a17-3/star.copyright
> 
> Took about ten seconds to find out it was GPL before upstream relicensed
> and debian maint just copied that.

Ah, ok, nice to know.

For your info, the upstream author claims that Debian has accepted the CDDL as
free, because the CDDLed star package has been accepted in debian.

So i wondered if that was a real thing, or if the licence change just slipped
in without anyone noticing, which may indeed be the case.

> Write a bug against the package if its non-free is your option now.

Well, i want first to know if we indeed consider the CDDL and its
choice-of-venue clause non-free, or not. And this is as good as any a place to
start this discussion, so i will attaach the full licence file here.

Friendly,

Sven Luther
This package was debianized by Pawel Wiecek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on
Tue, 29 Jan 2002 12:10:43 +0100.

It was downloaded from ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/star/

Project's webpage:
http://www.fokus.gmd.de/research/cc/glone/employees/joerg.schilling/private/star.html

Upstream Author: Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Copyright:

COMMON DEVELOPMENT AND DISTRIBUTION LICENSE Version 1.0

1. Definitions.

1.1. "Contributor" means each individual or entity that creates
 or contributes to the creation of Modifications.

1.2. "Contributor Version" means the combination of the Original
 Software, prior Modifications used by a Contributor (if any),
 and the Modifications made by that particular Contributor.

1.3. "Covered Software" means (a) the Original Software, or (b)
 Modifications, or (c) the combination of files containing
 Original Software with files containing Modifications, in
 each case including portions thereof.

1.4. "Executable" means the Covered Software in any form other
 than Source Code.

1.5. "Initial Developer" means the individual or entity that first
 makes Original Software available under this License.

1.6. "Larger Work" means a work which combines Covered Software or
 portions thereof with code not governed by the terms of this
 License.

1.7. "License" means this document.

1.8. "Licensable" means having the right to grant, to the maximum
 extent possible, whether at the time of the initial grant or
 subsequently acquired, any and all of the rights conveyed
 herein.

1.9. "Modifications" means the Source Code and Executable form of
 any of the following:

A. Any file that results from an addition to, deletion from or
   modification of the contents of a file containing Original
   Software or previous Modifications;

B. Any new file that contains any part of the Original
   Software or previous Modifications; or

C. Any new file that is contributed or otherwise made
   available under the terms of this License.

1.10. "Original Software" means the Source Code and Executable
  form of computer software code that is originally released
  under this License.

1.11. "Patent Claims" means any patent claim(s), now owned or
  hereafter acquired, including without limitation, method,
  process, and apparatus claims, in any patent Licensable by
  grantor.

1.12. "Source Code" means (a) the common form of computer software
  code in which modifications are made and (b) associated
  documentation included in or with such code.

1.13. "You" (or "Your") means an individual or a legal entity
  exercising rights under, and complying with all of the terms
  of, this License.  For legal entities, "You" includes any
  entity which controls, is controlled by, or is under common
  control with You.  For purposes of this definition,
  "control" means (a) the power, direct or indirect, to cause
  the direction or management of such entity, whether by
  contract or otherwise, or (b) ownership of more than fifty
  percent (50%) of the outstanding shares or beneficial
  ownership of such entity.

2. License 

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

[George Danchev]

On Thursday 08 September 2005 16:21, Sven Luther wrote:
--cut--
> Yeah, well, i did an apt-get install star and looked at the copyright file,
> so i am not sure what facts i have to believe then.
>
> > http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/s/star/star_1.4a17-3/star
> >.copyright
> >
> > Took about ten seconds to find out it was GPL before upstream relicensed
> > and debian maint just copied that.
>
> Ah, ok, nice to know.

Note that the latest upstream development version is star-1.5a67.tar.gz [1] 
and is CDDL licensed with the following slight modifications:

diff -Naur CDDL.Sun.txt CDDL.Schily.txt
--- CDDL.Sun.txt2005-02-09 07:36:33.0 +0200
+++ CDDL.Schily.txt 2005-02-10 01:41:21.0 +0200
@@ -368,10 +368,9 @@
 DISTRIBUTION LICENSE (CDDL)

 For Covered Software in this distribution, this License shall
-be governed by the laws of the State of California (excluding
-conflict-of-law provisions).
+be governed by the laws of Germany (excluding conflict-of-law
+provisions).

 Any litigation relating to this License shall be subject to the
-jurisdiction of the Federal Courts of the Northern District of
-California and the state courts of the State of California, with
-venue lying in Santa Clara County, California.
+jurisdiction and the courts of Berlin Germany, with venue lying
+in Berlin Germany.

[1] http://sourcewell.berlios.de/appbyid.php?id=1036

-- 
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 
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: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

[Dalibor Topic]

Sven Luther wrote:

Notice that we already accepted a CDDLed program in debian, namely the star
packages which comes with this clause :

9. MISCELLANEOUS.


[snip]


 The application of the
United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale
of Goods is expressly excluded.


[snip]

That's my favourite bit of lawyerese in MPL-derivative licenses.

I wish they had expressly excluded the sharia law on software licenses 
as practised by the late Taleban ruling Kandahar.



So, i wonder why it was accepted, if it was non-free. But maybe we just passed
it up silently and didn't notice ? Who was the ftp-master responsible for
letting this one enter the archive, and can he comment on this ?


I guess it was a mistake.

star used to be under the GPL, and then Joerg Schilling changed the 
license to CDDL. The respective change was at 
http://packages.qa.debian.org/s/star/news/4.html and the license change 
did not seem to have been discussed on debian-legal. The discussions on 
CDDL in 2005-01 seem to have petered out inconclusively.


cheers,
dalibor topic


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

[Sven Luther]

On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 03:55:56PM +0200, Dalibor Topic wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> >Notice that we already accepted a CDDLed program in debian, namely the star
> >packages which comes with this clause :
> >
> >9. MISCELLANEOUS.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> > The application of the
> >United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale
> >of Goods is expressly excluded.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> That's my favourite bit of lawyerese in MPL-derivative licenses.
> 
> I wish they had expressly excluded the sharia law on software licenses 
> as practised by the late Taleban ruling Kandahar.

So, is this non-free or not ?

> >So, i wonder why it was accepted, if it was non-free. But maybe we just 
> >passed
> >it up silently and didn't notice ? Who was the ftp-master responsible for
> >letting this one enter the archive, and can he comment on this ?
> 
> I guess it was a mistake.

So, we need either to get back the old star version, or somehow kick the whole
thing out of debian and into non-free ...

> star used to be under the GPL, and then Joerg Schilling changed the 
> license to CDDL. The respective change was at 
> http://packages.qa.debian.org/s/star/news/4.html and the license change 
> did not seem to have been discussed on debian-legal. The discussions on 
> CDDL in 2005-01 seem to have petered out inconclusively.

... but before taking such actions, we should probably decide on the CDDL.

Friendly,

Sven Luther


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

[Sven Luther]

On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:53:12PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> On Thursday 08 September 2005 16:21, Sven Luther wrote:
> --cut--
> > Yeah, well, i did an apt-get install star and looked at the copyright file,
> > so i am not sure what facts i have to believe then.
> >
> > > http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/s/star/star_1.4a17-3/star
> > >.copyright
> > >
> > > Took about ten seconds to find out it was GPL before upstream relicensed
> > > and debian maint just copied that.
> >
> > Ah, ok, nice to know.
> 
> Note that the latest upstream development version is star-1.5a67.tar.gz [1] 
> and is CDDL licensed with the following slight modifications:
> 
> diff -Naur CDDL.Sun.txt CDDL.Schily.txt
> --- CDDL.Sun.txt2005-02-09 07:36:33.0 +0200
> +++ CDDL.Schily.txt 2005-02-10 01:41:21.0 +0200
> @@ -368,10 +368,9 @@
>  DISTRIBUTION LICENSE (CDDL)
> 
>  For Covered Software in this distribution, this License shall
> -be governed by the laws of the State of California (excluding
> -conflict-of-law provisions).
> +be governed by the laws of Germany (excluding conflict-of-law
> +provisions).
> 
>  Any litigation relating to this License shall be subject to the
> -jurisdiction of the Federal Courts of the Northern District of
> -California and the state courts of the State of California, with
> -venue lying in Santa Clara County, California.
> +jurisdiction and the courts of Berlin Germany, with venue lying
> +in Berlin Germany.
> 
> [1] http://sourcewell.berlios.de/appbyid.php?id=1036

Yeah, this is the CDDL with the modular choice-of-venue and choice-of-law.

Friendly,

Sven Luther


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian OpenSolaris port, exchange with Sun folks in webforum/MailingList

[Henning Makholm]

Scripsit Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> I get the feeling that it is not the freeness of them which is an issue, they
> don't really make the software more or less free after all, since they enter
> in account only if the licence is broken,

There's your mistake. A choice-of-venue clause becomes relevant as
soon as one party decides to sue the other. He can do that without the
license actually having been broken. If the other party cannot appear
at the court being stipulated, the plaintiff will _automatically_ win
in many jurisdictions; and then it will never be relevant whether the
license was _actually_ broken.

> and we don't really can consider freeness definitions based on more
> or less broken local juridictions.

You may consider most jurisdictions in the world broken and prefer to
decide freedom as it would apply in a hypothetical "ideal"
jurisdiction, according to some definition of "ideal". I don't. Debian
has to function in the real world.

> Now, that doesn't mean we have to accept them, but we would reject them not
> based on the DFSG, but based on the risk they bring to our infrastructure and
> mirror network and ...

We must reject them because such licenses only gives the *user* the
freedoms we promise him that he will have if the *user* agrees to
submit himself to a completely unlimited risk of having to travel to
the end of the world to defend himself from bogus lawsuits from the
software author.

-- 
Henning Makholm  "Jeg kunne ikke undgå at bemærke at han gik på hænder."

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

[Dalibor Topic]

Sven Luther wrote:

On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 03:55:56PM +0200, Dalibor Topic wrote:


Sven Luther wrote:


Notice that we already accepted a CDDLed program in debian, namely the star
packages which comes with this clause :

9. MISCELLANEOUS.


[snip]



The application of the
  United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale
  of Goods is expressly excluded.


[snip]

That's my favourite bit of lawyerese in MPL-derivative licenses.

I wish they had expressly excluded the sharia law on software licenses 
as practised by the late Taleban ruling Kandahar.



So, is this non-free or not ?


It's incomprehensible legalese gibberish to a mere non-lawyer mortal 
like me, so I can't really say.


That's a general problem of MPL-derivative licenses: they were written 
by lawyers for lawyers, ignoring that most developers do not have an 
extensive background in intimate details of international contract law, 
or whatever the MPL (and by inheriting the clause, CDDL) tries to avoid 
getting bound by.


If you are into reading funny flamewars about CDDL from other groups, 
see the star vs. OpenBSD thread on open bsd lists this spring.



... but before taking such actions, we should probably decide on the CDDL.


I agree.

cheers,
dalibor topic


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian OpenSolaris port, exchange with Sun folks in webforum/MailingList

[Henning Makholm]

Scripsit Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 02:06:12AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:

>> Do we really think it's a good idea to approve of giving copyright
>> holders extra leverage for such lawsuits in their license, and just
>> hope that none of these copyrights ever wind up in the hands of a
>> hostile entity?

> Sure, but this has not to do if the software is free or not

It has. The DFSG specifies freedoms which must be present. A freedom
is not present, for the purposes of Debian, if it is only granted
to those who agree to be bound by onerous terms such as a
choice-of-venue claus.

> I agree that we should not accept such licence, but not because they are not
> free :)

It is only free for people who agree to be on the beck-and-call of the
author for all time ever after. That means, for the purposes of
Debian, that it is not free at all.

-- 
Henning Makholm  # good fish ...
# goodfish, goodfish ...
 # good-good FISH! #


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

[Yorick Cool]

On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 03:55:56PM +0200, Dalibor Topic wrote:
Dalibor> > The application of the
Dalibor> >United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale
Dalibor> >of Goods is expressly excluded.
Dalibor> 
Dalibor> [snip]
Dalibor> 
Dalibor> That's my favourite bit of lawyerese in MPL-derivative licenses.
Dalibor> 
Dalibor> I wish they had expressly excluded the sharia law on software licenses 
Dalibor> as practised by the late Taleban ruling Kandahar.

Well actually, in most countries part of the UN, the convention applies by 
default to
international contracts. So it is quite relevant to exclude it, otherwise it 
may seriously
be contended that it is applicable.

Cheers,
-- 
Yorick Cool
Chercheur au CRID
Rempart de la Vierge, 5
B-5000 Namur
Tel: + 32 (0)81 72 47 62 /+32 (0)81 51 37 75
Fax: + 32 (0)81 72 52 02


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

[Lionel Elie Mamane]

On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:58:32PM +0200, Yorick Cool wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 03:55:56PM +0200, Dalibor Topic wrote:

>>> The application of the
>>>United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale
>>>of Goods is expressly excluded.

>> That's my favourite bit of lawyerese in MPL-derivative licenses.

>> I wish they had expressly excluded the sharia law on software licenses 
>> as practised by the late Taleban ruling Kandahar.
> 
> Well actually, in most countries part of the UN, the convention
> applies by default to international contracts. So it is quite
> relevant to exclude it, otherwise it may seriously be contended that
> it is applicable.

Yes, but what does it *say*? What are the consequences of it being
applicable?

(
 And for my education: Does it apply to "international" intra-European
 contracts?
)

-- 
Lionel


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

[Yorick Cool]

On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 05:04:00PM +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
Lionel> 
Lionel> >>> The application of the
Lionel> >>>United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale
Lionel> >>>of Goods is expressly excluded.
Lionel> 
Lionel> Yes, but what does it *say*? What are the consequences of it being
Lionel> applicable?

Well, a whole bunch of stuff ;-) Basically, it clarifies outstanding matters in 
which
countries have widely different conceptions of contracts: formation, hardship, 
etc. It's
not bad, really, because it takes an unformal approach to contracts: no need 
for written
contracts, usages are to be incorporated, etc. And it helps solve the typical 
problems that
arise when two sets of law might apply.

Now, I'll have to add that to me, it shouldn't apply most of the time to 
software
licenses  because it applies
to *sale of goods*, and to me a software license has nothing to do with sale of 
goods. But,
it seems that in some countries there are people who dispute that, so it might 
be better to be safe than sorry, even though,
as I said, there's not much to fear in the convention.

My point was mainly that the Vienna Convention was more relevant than the 
Wallonia act of 1963
on typewriting or whatever the original example of daft legislation was.

Lionel>  And for my education: Does it apply to "international" intra-European
Lionel>  contracts?
Lionel> )

Yep, if they qualify as sale of goods. 

For those interested, here's a link to the convention.

http://www.jus.uio.no/lm/un.contracts.international.sale.of.goods.convention.1980/doc.html

Cheers,
-- 
Yorick Cool
Chercheur au CRID
Rempart de la Vierge, 5
B-5000 Namur
Tel: + 32 (0)81 72 47 62 /+32 (0)81 51 37 75
Fax: + 32 (0)81 72 52 02


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

[Henning Makholm]

Scripsit Lionel Elie Mamane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:58:32PM +0200, Yorick Cool wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 03:55:56PM +0200, Dalibor Topic wrote:

 The application of the
United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale
of Goods is expressly excluded.

>> Well actually, in most countries part of the UN, the convention
>> applies by default to international contracts. So it is quite
>> relevant to exclude it, otherwise it may seriously be contended that
>> it is applicable.

> Yes, but what does it *say*?

There are thousands and thousands of words in the CISG. They cover
much ground in many areas of contract law. It is impossible to tell
which specific one of the CISG's 101 articles Mozilla's lawyers were
afraid of.

The context of the exclusion suggests that the target might be default
choice-of-law and choice-of-venue principles, but such rules are not
to be found in the CISG.

The very curious may read the full text of the convention at


> What are the consequences of it being applicable?

The effect of the exception is probably very different in different
jurisdictions.

The CISG is a treaty between *governments*; some governments may have
implemented it by adjusting their national law such that it matches
the principles of the CISG (in which case the explict exclusion of
CISG is likely a no-op). Others may have special rules for
international contracts in their national law which "just happen" to
be compatible with the CISG (in which case the exclusion is probably
still a no-op). Still others have incorporated the CISG by reference
into their body of law. In the latter case only, the exclusion
probably means that a party is barred from appealing to the CISG to
justify an interpretation of the license text with which the pther
party does not agree. He can still try to argue his interpretation
based on other sources than CISG, of course.

One readily imagines that the exclusion has some well-defined meaning
under California law. However it is quite likely that it becomes pure
nonsense when somebody outside USA creates a MPL-derived license and
substitutes his own local jurisdiction for "California".

>  And for my education: Does it apply to "international" intra-European
>  contracts?

That varies. For example, Denmark, Sweden, and Finland have opted out
of part II of CISG (pursuant to Article 92) and do not recognize it
for trade between the Nordic countries.

In principle the CISG would apply unless a "better" source of law
claims otherwise and takes precedence. Conflicting EU regulations
could be one such better source of law, but isn't necessarily - there
are several classes of EU regulations, and some of them may have
weaker force in some member states than a strongly implemented CISG.
(Isn't law fun?)


For the record, my own favourite piece of legalese is

| The Covered Code is a "commercial item," as that term is defined in
| 48 C.F.R. 2.101 (Oct. 1995), consisting of "commercial computer
| software" and "commercial computer software documentation," as such
| terms are used in 48 C.F.R. 12.212 (Sept.  1995). Consistent with 48
| C.F.R. 12.212 and 48 C.F.R. 227.7202-1 through 227.7202-4 (June
| 1995), all U.S. Government End Users acquire Covered Code with only
| those rights set forth herein.

I have managed to find out what "C.F.R." means and to locate the text
of the referenced sections, completely without becoming wiser about
what that text is supposed to achieve (and whether a private party
*can* at all stipulate a different application of the U.S. federal
administration's _internal_ purchasing regulations than would
otherwise be used) ...

-- 
Henning Makholm  "I paid off ALL my debts and bought a much-needed new car."


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

[Andrew Suffield]

On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:53:12PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> On Thursday 08 September 2005 16:21, Sven Luther wrote:
> --cut--
> > Yeah, well, i did an apt-get install star and looked at the copyright file,
> > so i am not sure what facts i have to believe then.
> >
> > > http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/s/star/star_1.4a17-3/star
> > >.copyright
> > >
> > > Took about ten seconds to find out it was GPL before upstream relicensed
> > > and debian maint just copied that.
> >
> > Ah, ok, nice to know.
> 
> Note that the latest upstream development version is star-1.5a67.tar.gz [1] 
> and is CDDL licensed with the following slight modifications:

Which constitutes a trademark violation at the very least (it's not
the CDDL any more) and quite probably a copyright one (the CDDL isn't
modifiable).

Yeesh.

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


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

[Sven Luther]

On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 06:24:34PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:53:12PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> > On Thursday 08 September 2005 16:21, Sven Luther wrote:
> > --cut--
> > > Yeah, well, i did an apt-get install star and looked at the copyright 
> > > file,
> > > so i am not sure what facts i have to believe then.
> > >
> > > > http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/s/star/star_1.4a17-3/star
> > > >.copyright
> > > >
> > > > Took about ten seconds to find out it was GPL before upstream relicensed
> > > > and debian maint just copied that.
> > >
> > > Ah, ok, nice to know.
> > 
> > Note that the latest upstream development version is star-1.5a67.tar.gz [1] 
> > and is CDDL licensed with the following slight modifications:
> 
> Which constitutes a trademark violation at the very least (it's not
> the CDDL any more) and quite probably a copyright one (the CDDL isn't
> modifiable).

Since the star upstream author is deeply involved with sun and the whole
opensolaris guys, and he told me on the opensolaris list that he did ask for a
modular choice-of-venue thingy and that none of the opensolaris guys from sun
told him differently, i clearly doubt there is any such problem :)

Friendly,

Sven Luther


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

[George Danchev]

On Thursday 08 September 2005 20:24, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:53:12PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> > On Thursday 08 September 2005 16:21, Sven Luther wrote:
> > --cut--
> >
> > > Yeah, well, i did an apt-get install star and looked at the copyright
> > > file, so i am not sure what facts i have to believe then.
> > >
> > > > http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/s/star/star_1.4a17-3/
> > > >star .copyright
> > > >
> > > > Took about ten seconds to find out it was GPL before upstream
> > > > relicensed and debian maint just copied that.
> > >
> > > Ah, ok, nice to know.
> >
> > Note that the latest upstream development version is star-1.5a67.tar.gz
> > [1] and is CDDL licensed with the following slight modifications:
>
> Which constitutes a trademark violation at the very least (it's not
> the CDDL any more) and quite probably a copyright one (the CDDL isn't
> modifiable).

Interestingly enough he has already been told that he violates the CDDL itself 
[1]. Also a good dispute starts here (as mentioned by someone above) [2] and 
what I was surprised was the vigorous pushing of star and cddl into the obsd 
tree.

So there are at least two kind of problems with cddl:
*modifications in a weird way - which doesn't fit into the spirit of BSD
*choice-of-venue and choice-of-law - floating sandy layers which could be 
dangerous for anyone on the Earth IMHO.

[1] http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/openbsd/2005-02/0407.html
[2] http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/openbsd/2005-02/thread.html#399

I feel that the author will convert sooner or later smake and cdrecord to cddl 
as a part of his anti-GPL campaign.

-- 
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 
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: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

[Sven Luther]

On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 08:57:59PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> On Thursday 08 September 2005 20:24, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:53:12PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> > > On Thursday 08 September 2005 16:21, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > --cut--
> > >
> > > > Yeah, well, i did an apt-get install star and looked at the copyright
> > > > file, so i am not sure what facts i have to believe then.
> > > >
> > > > > http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/s/star/star_1.4a17-3/
> > > > >star .copyright
> > > > >
> > > > > Took about ten seconds to find out it was GPL before upstream
> > > > > relicensed and debian maint just copied that.
> > > >
> > > > Ah, ok, nice to know.
> > >
> > > Note that the latest upstream development version is star-1.5a67.tar.gz
> > > [1] and is CDDL licensed with the following slight modifications:
> >
> > Which constitutes a trademark violation at the very least (it's not
> > the CDDL any more) and quite probably a copyright one (the CDDL isn't
> > modifiable).
> 
> Interestingly enough he has already been told that he violates the CDDL 
> itself 
> [1]. Also a good dispute starts here (as mentioned by someone above) [2] and 
> what I was surprised was the vigorous pushing of star and cddl into the obsd 
> tree.

Yes, altough he told me that :

  1) Debian has accepted the CDDL as DFSG free, and as proof the star package
  is in.

  2) Any argument i may have are only the lame repetition of the opinion of a
  single person here on debian-legal.

> So there are at least two kind of problems with cddl:
> *modifications in a weird way - which doesn't fit into the spirit of BSD
> *choice-of-venue and choice-of-law - floating sandy layers which could be 
> dangerous for anyone on the Earth IMHO.
> 
> [1] http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/openbsd/2005-02/0407.html
> [2] http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/openbsd/2005-02/thread.html#399
> 
> I feel that the author will convert sooner or later smake and cdrecord to 
> cddl 
> as a part of his anti-GPL campaign.

Oh, he is the cdrecord guy.

Friendly,

Sven Luther


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

[Marco d'Itri]

On Sep 08, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>   2) Any argument i may have are only the lame repetition of the opinion of a
>   single person here on debian-legal.
Indeed, the "choice of venue is a fee" argument is just that: an
opinion which has at best no clear roots in the DFSG, therefore it
cannot make a license non-free.

-- 
ciao,
Marco


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Processed: new address

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

> submitter 170477 !
Bug#170477: xmltex: can't make DVI/PS from DocBook orderedlist/itemizedlist
Changed Bug submitter from Jean-Philippe Guérard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> to 
Jean-Philippe Guérard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.

> submitter 53121 !
Bug#53121: There is not acknoledged central repository for the hostname, the 
domainname and the FQDN.
Changed Bug submitter from [EMAIL PROTECTED] to Jean-Philippe Guérard <[EMAIL 
PROTECTED]>.

> submitter 65179 !
Bug#65179: Tk widgets do not handle dead keys
Changed Bug submitter from [EMAIL PROTECTED] to Jean-Philippe Guérard <[EMAIL 
PROTECTED]>.

> submitter 70001 !
Bug#70001: tkchooser fails on startup
Changed Bug submitter from [EMAIL PROTECTED] to Jean-Philippe Guérard <[EMAIL 
PROTECTED]>.

> submitter 73611 !
Bug#73611: sshd segfault if the pam_issue module is used
Changed Bug submitter from [EMAIL PROTECTED] to Jean-Philippe Guérard <[EMAIL 
PROTECTED]>.

> submitter 75853 !
Bug#75853: libsafe kills openssl when openssl tries to encrypt a key
Changed Bug submitter from [EMAIL PROTECTED] to Jean-Philippe Guérard <[EMAIL 
PROTECTED]>.

> submitter 123560 !
Bug#123560: falconseye: When prompting to select from a list of objets, an 
object can be assigned the space character
Changed Bug submitter from Jean-Philippe Guérard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> to 
Jean-Philippe Guérard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.

> submitter 138947 !
Bug#138947: powershell -e does not launch the given application
Changed Bug submitter from Jean-Philippe Guérard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> to 
Jean-Philippe Guérard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.

> submitter 168482 !
Bug#168482: linuxdoc-tools: incorrect latex files might be created when the 
author field includes an url
Changed Bug submitter from Jean-Philippe Guérard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> to 
Jean-Philippe Guérard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.

> submitter 65057 !
Bug#65057: [wish] could url_handler.sh be packaged as a configuration file and 
a separate executable file
Changed Bug submitter from [EMAIL PROTECTED] to Jean-Philippe Guérard <[EMAIL 
PROTECTED]>.

> submitter 85591 !
Bug#85591: Scaled background menu : should use keep the aspect ratio by default
Changed Bug submitter from [EMAIL PROTECTED] to Jean-Philippe Guérard <[EMAIL 
PROTECTED]>.

> submitter 147839 !
Bug#147839: libpam-doc: Short README file describing how to create a password 
DB for pam_userdb.so
Changed Bug submitter from Jean-Philippe Guérard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> to 
Jean-Philippe Guérard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.

> submitter 70572 !
Bug#70572: The postfix from line is formatted as e-mail-address (Full Name) - 
could it move to a standard Full Name 
Changed Bug submitter from [EMAIL PROTECTED] to Jean-Philippe Guérard <[EMAIL 
PROTECTED]>.

> submitter 188970 !
Bug#188970: xsl:apply-templates : can't find doc
Changed Bug submitter from Jean-Philippe Guérard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> to 
Jean-Philippe Guérard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.

> submitter 60156 !
Bug#60156: The newt entry in aptitude causes aptitude to abort
Changed Bug submitter from [EMAIL PROTECTED] to Jean-Philippe Guérard <[EMAIL 
PROTECTED]>.
(By the way, that Bug is currently marked as done.)

> submitter 231238 !
Bug#231238: apmd 3.2.1-2 suspend the system as soon as it has not been used for 
a few minutes
Changed Bug submitter from Jean-Philippe Guérard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> to 
Jean-Philippe Guérard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.

> submitter 285691 !
Bug#285691: amavisd-new: Amavis fails to process the first message for a file 
sent in several messages
Changed Bug submitter from Jean-Philippe Guérard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> to 
Jean-Philippe Guérard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.

>
End of message, stopping processing here.

Please contact me if you need assistance.

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

[Sven Luther]

On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 08:21:57PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Sep 08, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> >   2) Any argument i may have are only the lame repetition of the opinion of 
> > a
> >   single person here on debian-legal.
> Indeed, the "choice of venue is a fee" argument is just that: an
> opinion which has at best no clear roots in the DFSG, therefore it
> cannot make a license non-free.

Yeah, but there is certainly more than a single person arguing that we should
not distribute software with such licence.

Friendly,

Sven Luther


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

[Marco d'Itri]

On Sep 08, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> > Indeed, the "choice of venue is a fee" argument is just that: an
> > opinion which has at best no clear roots in the DFSG, therefore it
> > cannot make a license non-free.
> Yeah, but there is certainly more than a single person arguing that we should
> not distribute software with such licence.
There is nothing wrong with this, and I'm not a fan of choice of venue
clauses either, but they should try to modify the DFSG then.

-- 
ciao,
Marco


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#327276: ITP: italc -- Intelligent Teaching And Learning with Computers

[Florian Ragwitz]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Florian Ragwitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

* Package name: italc
  Version : 0.9.6.2
  Upstream Author : Tobias Dörffel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : italc.sf.net
* License : GPL
  Description : Intelligent Teaching And Learning with Computers

 iTALC - Intelligent Teaching And Learning with Computers - is a
 powerful free software for (currently only Linux-)networks, which was
 especially developed for working with computers in school. But it can
 be also used in other learning-environments. iTALC intends to support
 teachers, who are using the computer as didactical tool in their
 lessons and aims to be a complete replacement for expensive commercial
 software.
 .
 iTALC makes it possible, to access and influence the pupils activities
 just from the computer of the teacher. With the help of iTALC, for
 example the teacher is able to see the content of the pupils screens on
 his screen. If a pupil needs help, the teacher can access the pupils
 desktop and give support from his computer. The pupil can watch all
 activities, the teacher is doing on his desktop. So the pupil can learn
 new processes. For teaching something to all pupils, you can switch
 into demo-mode where all screens of the pupils show the teacher-screen.
 Furthermore things like locking pupil's screens, killing games, power
 on/off clients and much more can be done with iTALC.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Shell:  /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.13
Locale: LANG=C, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (charmap=ISO-8859-15)

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

[Josselin Mouette]

Le vendredi 09 septembre 2005 à 00:00 +0200, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
> > Yeah, but there is certainly more than a single person arguing that we 
> > should
> > not distribute software with such licence.
> There is nothing wrong with this, and I'm not a fan of choice of venue
> clauses either, but they should try to modify the DFSG then.

Could you explain why DFSG#5 couldn't be invoked in this case?
-- 
 .''`.   Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' :   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

[Dalibor Topic]

Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Lionel Elie Mamane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
>>On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:58:32PM +0200, Yorick Cool wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 03:55:56PM +0200, Dalibor Topic wrote:
> 
> 
>The application of the
>   United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale
>   of Goods is expressly excluded.
> 
> 
>>>Well actually, in most countries part of the UN, the convention
>>>applies by default to international contracts. So it is quite
>>>relevant to exclude it, otherwise it may seriously be contended that
>>>it is applicable.
> 
> 
>>Yes, but what does it *say*?
> 
> 
> There are thousands and thousands of words in the CISG. They cover
> much ground in many areas of contract law. It is impossible to tell
> which specific one of the CISG's 101 articles Mozilla's lawyers were
> afraid of.
> 

Thanks Henning, and thanks Yorrick for putting all the work into
investigating what started as a joke on puzzling legalese. Now I know
more than I ever wanted to know about UN sale of goods conventions.

cheers,
dalibor topic


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

[Marco d'Itri]

On Sep 09, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> > There is nothing wrong with this, and I'm not a fan of choice of venue
> > clauses either, but they should try to modify the DFSG then.
> Could you explain why DFSG#5 couldn't be invoked in this case?
It does not work this way. If you believe that a license is not free
it's up to you explaining why.

-- 
ciao,
Marco


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: It is 23:53, do you know whether your package (un)installs cleanly?

[Lars Wirzenius]

su, 2005-09-04 kello 11:32 -0400, Joey Hess kirjoitti:
> Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> > That's what I wanted to say, but, alas, it doesn't work. debootstrap
> > fails to create an etch or sid chroot for me at the moment.
> 
> It does if you run it with --resolve-deps.

Indeed it does. Mea culpa. I have now made piuparts add --resolve-deps
to the debootstrap invocation, so hopefully things will work better in
the future. This is included in version 0.9, making it's way into
incoming right now.

I'm beginning to think that I should stop analyzing each piuparts
failure myself, and file bugs as appropriate, and just publish the logs
and mail -devel with a list of failed packages, in the hope that this
will attract enough attention by package maintainers. I could then use
my time more efficiently on other things. After all, I'm hoping to get
package maintainers run piuparts as part of their quality assurance
before they upload.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#254248: What are the differences between cdebootstrap and debootstrap?

[Rogério Brito]

Package: cdebootstrap
Version: 0.3.4
Followup-For: Bug #254248

I was a bit surprised to see a bug like 254248 being tagged as won't
fix.

I had the very same question as the original poster of the bug and I see
that the package maintainer has taken similar actions to patches (see
bug #231711), without justifying the reason of his action.

And, frankly, providing the one-liner description in the field of the
"long description" is something quite unreasonable.

The man page of cdebootstrap is not much better and even though bug
#294487 was fixed, I feel that the documentation of the packgage is in
desperate need of a facelift. The changelog is also quite "sparse", if
you know what I mean.

I would like to read the opinion of other users regarding this topic,
which I think is of utmost importance for any decent operating system
(otherwise, if documentation were not important, why would the project
create all the fuzz to move things into non-free?).


Sincerely yours, Rogério Brito.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (900, 'testing')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Shell:  /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.13-rc5-1.hm
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=pt_BR (charmap=ISO-8859-1)

Versions of packages cdebootstrap depends on:
ii  libc6 2.3.5-6GNU C Library: Shared libraries an
ii  libdebian-installer-extra40.34   Library of some extra debian-insta
ii  libdebian-installer4  0.34   Library of common debian-installer
ii  wget  1.10.1-1   retrieves files from the web

cdebootstrap recommends no packages.

-- no debconf information

-- 
Rogério Brito : [EMAIL PROTECTED] : http://www.ime.usp.br/~rbrito
Homepage of the algorithms package : http://algorithms.berlios.de
Homepage on freshmeat:  http://freshmeat.net/projects/algorithms/

????? .. ?????? ?????? ????????

[SMS]

 ? ? ??  ??? ?? ? ?
 ?  ??  ??
http://www.1426.ws

? ??? ?? :
??? ?? ??? 
  ? ?? 
? ??? 
 ??? 


?? ?? 
??? 
demo
? ?
demo

* ??  ?? ??? ??? ..


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

[Sven Luther]

On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 12:00:54AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Sep 08, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > > Indeed, the "choice of venue is a fee" argument is just that: an
> > > opinion which has at best no clear roots in the DFSG, therefore it
> > > cannot make a license non-free.
> > Yeah, but there is certainly more than a single person arguing that we 
> > should
> > not distribute software with such licence.
> There is nothing wrong with this, and I'm not a fan of choice of venue
> clauses either, but they should try to modify the DFSG then.

Claiming this is only a single person arguing that, when i pointed him to a
50+ thread where more than 10 person participated, well, i don't know what you
think about lying and hypocricy, but i certainly find something wrong with it :)

Friendly,

Sven Luther


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Work-needing packages report for Sep 9, 2005

[wnpp]

The following is a listing of packages for which help has been requested
through the WNPP (Work-Needing and Prospective Packages) system in the
last week.

Total number of orphaned packages: 194 (new: 0)
Total number of packages offered up for adoption: 86 (new: 0)
Total number of packages requested help for: 17 (new: 1)

Please refer to http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/ for more information.



No new packages have been orphaned, but a total of 194 packages are
orphaned.  See http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/orphaned
for a complete list.



No new packages have been given up for adoption, but a total of 86 packages
are awaiting adoption.  See http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/rfa_bypackage
for a complete list.



For the following packages help is requested:

[NEW] php-pspell (#326173), requested 6 days ago

   aboot (#315592), requested 77 days ago
 Description: Alpha bootloader: Looking for co-maintainers
 Reverse Depends: aboot-cross ltsp-server dfsbuild aboot

   athcool (#278442), requested 317 days ago
 Description: Enable powersaving mode for Athlon/Duron processors

   debtags (#321654), requested 33 days ago
 Description: Enables support for package tags
 Reverse Depends: libdebtags1-pic debtags-edit

   dselect (#282283), requested 292 days ago
 Description: a user tool to manage Debian packages

   ggz- (#324279), requested 18 days ago

   grub (#248397), requested 486 days ago
 Description: GRand Unified Bootloader
 Reverse Depends: webmin-grub grubconf replicator dfsbuild
 grub-splashimages

   gtkpod (#319711), requested 46 days ago
 Description: manage songs and playlists on an Apple iPod

   lsdvd (#316922), requested 66 days ago
 Description: read the contents of a DVD

   mwavem (#313369), requested 87 days ago (non-free)
 Description: Mwave/ACP modem support software

   parted (#262885), requested 402 days ago
 Description: Searching co-maintainer for the parted package.
 Reverse Depends: libparted1.6-dbg libparted1.6-i18n prep-installer
 qtparted partconf parted parted-udeb elilo-installer gparted
 autopartkit partman-base partman-efi partconf-mkfstab
 libparted1.6-dev aboot-installer lvmcfg-utils mindi
 partconf-find-partitions

   pbbuttonsd (#270558), requested 366 days ago
 Description: PBButtons daemon to handle special hotkeys of Apple
 computers
 Reverse Depends: pbbuttonsd-dev gtkpbbuttons gtkpbbuttons-gnome
 powerprefs

   qmailadmin (#267756), requested 380 days ago
 Description: web interface for managing qmail with virtual domains
 [contrib]

   sourcenav (#263051), requested 402 days ago
 Description: Source code analysis, editor, browser and build tool:
 Looking for co-maintainer

   sql-ledger (#320442), requested 41 days ago
 Description: A web based double-entry accounting program

   squashfs (#267078), requested 384 days ago
 Description: Tool to create and append to squashfs filesystems

   stlport4.6 (#263052), requested 402 days ago
 Description: STLport C++ class library
 Reverse Depends: libstlport4.6-dev

See http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/help_requested for more information.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]