Re: licence for Truecrypt
I'm puzzled by what looks like a duplicated reply. I reply to
only one.
dtufs <dtufs@yahoo.com>
> > but UNACCEPTABLY protects integrity of the
> > author's source (DFSG 4) due to attempting to
> > enforce a super-trademark in III.1.a
>
> The PHP License 3.0 and the Apache License 1.0 (which
> are both approved as free software license by the FSF,
> and as open source license by the OSI) require exactly
> the same thing:
[...]
> I think Debian does distribute PHP and Apache.
I think there are open questions on the PHP licence and I
think our Apache packages are prepared by a member of the
Apache Software Foundation, so I bow to his knowledge of
that trademark if he's reading, but I think the Truecrypt
attempt to reserve a number of variations of the name
exceeds both the other licences you mention.
Approval by the FSF is an indicator, but we cannot usually
see their reasoning and members of this list have spotted
errors in licensing of material copyright FSF before.
However, the Truecrypt licence is not listed by FSF.
Approval by the failed Open Source Initiative is irrelevant.
> From these facts, I would judge (1) that you are not
> qualified to tell whether a license adheres to the
> Debian Free Software Guidelines or (2) that licenses
> of some prominent software packages distributed by
> Debian do not adhere to the Debian Free Software
> Guidelines.
(1) I'm as qualified as most posters here.
(2) You're probably right. We call those serious bugs.
> > MIGHT discriminate against private use (DFSG 6) with
> > the public availability requirement of III.1.d
>
> Could you specify coditions under which you think the
> license would discriminate against private use? [...]
I distribute a changed version to my second cousin.
That is not covered by III.3.b so III.1.d applies and
I must make it publicly available (whatever that means).
[...]
> > MIGHT discriminate against commerce (DFSG 6) with
> > the AS THIS PRODUCT IS FREE in IV.1
>
> Actually, the GPL says the same in Section 11:
>
> "11. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE,
> THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM"
Don Armstrong has already pointed out the difference there.
> My summary: Nobody has presented any facts that would
> indicate that the license in question might be
> non-free.
I disagree. Also, "free" is not the default state of copyright
at the minute - it's non-free until shown otherwise.
> I tried to show the OP that he was wrong. The GPL uses
> the same approach (it does not matter that it does not
> mention 'use'). Anyway, I can give you even more
> precise precedents. We can find equal terms in the
> following licenses, which are explicitly governed by
> the US law:
Possibly the PP (not OP Karl Goetz) thinks they don't
stick either. However, citing a somewhat different
wording in the GPL as equal is incorrect.
[...]
> > Maybe it isn't proved to the contrary, but
> > that's a side effect of being unclear.
>
> Sorry, but this is beginning to appear like FUD to me.
> No facts stated (just fear, uncertainty, and doubt).
I feel fear, uncertainty and doubt about confusing licences.
If you read my statement http://people.debian.org/~mjr/legal/
you may understand why, but I doubt it.
> Every license I know is somewhat unclear (or vague) in
> many places.
I've seen clear licences, but that's not relevant here.
Most of the ones you cite, such as GPL, are better-understood
than the Truecrypt licence.
> [...] In such cases, the
> recipient should contact the authors of the license
> for clarification of his situation. That's common and
> recommended practise in the real world.
I agree entirely with that and have recommended it and done
it often.
> > Please, try not to start every other paragraph
> > with "You are wrong."
>
> If I think someone is wrong, I may (and often will)
> say it. We have freedom of speech.
And I also have the freedom to speak out against it. I know from
experience that it is often unhelpful.
> I also think it's not very polite to tell adult people
> how they should behave.
F 'em if they can't take advice.
> > That's true, but you don't get to stake the moral
> > high ground *after* replying at the same level.
>
> I wasn't at the same level. I just stated my opinion
> on how things work in the real world. In contrast, the
> other poster had directly insulted the person who
> wrote the license. I think there's a difference.
I disagree. The other "insult" was anything but direct, while yours was.
> > Hope that explains
>
> Yes, it did explain certain things to me. But I would
> say something not very nice about Debian if I revealed
> them.
Why does an email about licensing change the opinion of the
operating system?
Believe me, it's probably nothing compared to what I'd say about
this confrontational defence of the Truecrypt licence just now.
Ears would fall off.
Regards,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
Reply to: