Re: RPSL and DFSG-compliance
Hi Brian,
Thanks for the detailed reply. Some comments inline. Some will have to
wait for later, as there's a lot going on here in the next couple of
weeks (two conferences, and we're short staffed...if anyone is
interested in a job in Seattle, drop me a line...)
On Mon, 2004-07-26 at 13:26, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Wow! I hadn't realized there was somebody from Real interested in
> addressing this. If there's a prospect of seeing the RPSL evolve into
> something Debian can consider free, that's likely to motivate a *lot*
> more work from those here.
Glad to hear that.
> Given that gloomy warning, let's dive in to some specific problems:
>
> RPSL 1 says that nothing grants me permission to use the software.
> That's not true. US copyright law doesn't restrict that, and the
> contract of sale under which I bought a CD containing the software --
> or downloaded it -- gives me that permission. If you take the word
> "use" out of there, that problem goes away. Take a look at how the
> GPL phrases a similar clause. In general, similarity makes analysis
> much, much easier. This doesn't really tie back to any DFSG points,
> it's just one of those points so obvious it isn't written. The
> software has to be usable; also, if the license says things which are
> blatantly not true, we can't be sure that the licensor has anything
> like the same understanding of copyright law we have.
One key difference between the GPL and RPSL is that the GPL deals
strictly with copyright, whereas RPSL deals with copyright and patents.
RealNetworks is specifically granting patent rights in section 2.3, and
restricts use as covered under those patent rights.
> RPSL 1 also says that acceptance is indicated by clicking an "Accept"
> button or downloading the software; that binds mirrors and all sorts
> of other people who distribute Debian software blind to this license.
> Given the bulk of section 1, this last part ("In addition...software")
> really doesn't help Real at all, does it?
That's not a terribly important clause in the license, but not one that
we're inclined to take out, either. As far as I'm recall, there's not
any clause requiring distributors to present users with a clickwrap.
> RPSL 1.7 defines "Externally Deploy" in ways that are going to matter
> later. The easiest way to clean those up *may* be by fixing this
> definition. If I put some data into a video file, wait a month, then
> stream it out and watch it using Helix DNA, and having thus jogged my
> memory I provide a service to somebody else, it looks like that counts
> as External Deployment. That seems like *any* deployment, if I
> interact with others or provide services to them, is External
> Deployment. This definition isn't necessarily non-free, depending on
> what's below. But we'll get to that later.
>
> RPSL 1.5 and 1.11 define Personal Use. Because DFSG 6 prohibits
> discrimination by endeavor, we can't use *anything* which is only
> granted for personal use. Those grants, generous as they are and as
> much as I do use them in my personal work, don't count for making the
> software Free.
The idea behind 1.5 and 1.11 is to define what it means to Deploy, so
that it's clear what it means to "Externally Deploy" as defined in 1.8.
It doesn't discriminate against external deployment, since external
deployment is allowed. It calls for the release of source code upon
external deployment.
The rest of my reply will have to wait for later, I'm afraid.
Rob
> RPSL 2.1a *might* be non-free. It prohibits some sorts of
> modifications -- not only those necessary to prevent fraud and
> preserve copyright notices, but many others. It depends on whether
> there are notices in the original code which refer to the license, and
> which serve some functional purpose. If they're just in comments,
> then this is a no-op -- I hope you wouldn't mind altering it, in that
> case, since it isn't gaining you anything either. But if it prevents
> some functional modifications from being made, then it's certainly
> non-free.
>
> RPSL 2.1d is going to be the Big Problem, isn't it? That's really the
> teeth of the meta-copyleft in the RPSL, and I imagine it's very
> important to Real that it continue in its effect. But I don't see any
> way to call it Free. I expect several other debian-legal regulars to
> jump in and disagree at this point, and maybe we'll convince each
> other and can then get back to you.
>
> But here's my draft of what's non-free about RPSL 2.1d:
>
> > You must make Source Code of all Your Externally Deployed
> > Modifications publicly available under the terms of this License,
> > including the license grants set forth in Section 3 below, for as
> > long as you Deploy the Covered Code or twelve (12) months from the
> > date of initial Deployment, whichever is longer.
>
> The timing is a problem. That means that I can have forsworn
> computers entirely, and yet be obliged to lug around some vast lump of
> code to distribute. What happens if a patent's granted on that? Then
> I can't distribute it without breaking the law, but can't stop without
> breaking the license. That doesn't even reach to the DFSG level.
>
> Additionally, forced distribution for using modifications is itself
> non-free. This can be drawn back to several points of the DFSG: the
> unfortunately-fuzzy Discrimination clauses:
>
> 5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups: The license must not
> discriminate against any person or group of persons.
>
> 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor: The license must
> not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific
> field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program
> from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic
> research.
>
> And there are lots of people who want to modify and use some software,
> maybe N+1 steps removed from an end user who doesn't have the source,
> who can't because of this. Note that DFSG 6 isn't talking about
> restrictions on modification or distribution: it very clearly talks
> about restrictions on making use of the program. And this is such a
> restriction.
>
> It becomes even more intense in 2.1e:
>
> (e) if You Deploy Covered Code in object code, executable form only,
> You must include a prominent notice, in the code itself as well as
> in related documentation, stating that Source Code of the Covered
> Code is available under the terms of this License with information
> on how and where to obtain such Source Code. You must also include
> the Object Code Notice set forth in Exhibit A in the "about" box
> or other appropriate place where other copyright notices are
> placed, including any packaging materials.
>
> That's a very clear restriction on use. And I suspect that Real isn't
> willing to compromise on that; if so, please let us know.
>
> RPSL 3 is also problematic: the grant in 3b is far broader than the
> license Real grants with the software, which violates DFSG 3 -- it's
> not the same license under which I received the software.
>
> RPSL 12.6 requires a fee for distribution, violating DFSG 1.
>
> So. That's quite a list. And while it's great for us if Real fixes
> the little DFSG-incompatibilities, 2.1d and 2.1e are the real big
> problems. Can you say anything about those which might convince me
> and others that they're Free?
>
> -Brian
>
> --
> Brian Sniffen bts@alum.mit.edu
--
Rob Lanphier, Development Support Manager - RealNetworks
Helix Community: http://helixcommunity.org
Development Support:
http://www.realnetworks.com/products/support/devsupport
Reply to: