[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: TrueCrypt License 2.3



On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 10:15:49 +0100 Josselin Mouette wrote:

> Le lundi 14 janvier 2008 à 22:50 +0100, Francesco Poli a écrit :
> > >     a. The name of Your Product (or of Your modified version of This Product)
> > >     must not contain the name TrueCrypt (for example, the following names are
> > >     not allowed: TrueCrypt, TrueCrypt+, TrueCrypt Professional, iTrueCrypt,
> > >     etc.) nor any of its variations that can be easily confused with the name
> > >     TrueCrypt (e.g., True-Crypt, True Crypt, TrueKrypt, TruCrypt, etc.)
> > 
> > I've argued several times in the past against this kind of broad
> > restrictions.  I think they go beyond what is permitted (as a
> > compromise!) by DFSG#4.
> 
> We have allowed exactly the same conditions by using software with
> trademarked names. In fact, upstream is wrong for putting such
> restrictions in the license itself instead of the trademark policy, but
> the net effect is exactly the same as that of the Firefox trademark.

I don't think the effect is exactly the same.

For starters, if the renaming restrictions are placed in the copyright
license, they become conditions for getting copyright permissions.
AFAICT, when they are trademark policy rules, they don't interfere with
copyright.

Moreover, trademark laws differ across jurisdictions: as a consequence,
in some jurisdictions, I might have some trademark-related rights
independently from my compliance with a trademark-owner-imposed
"policy".  This does not hold when those "policy" rules are phrased as
conditions for getting copyright permissions.

> 
> > See, for instance:
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/11/msg00004.html
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/04/msg00181.html
> 
> Using yourself as a reference?

Just citing my previous arguments, rather than repeating them in full
(which would seem to be a waste of net resources).

> 
> > Warning!  Indemnification clause: is it acceptable?  It smells as
> > non-free...
> 
> Just have a look at the postfix license.

First off, I don't like the IBM Public License version 1.0, but that's
another story...

Anyway, the IBM Public License indemnification clause seems to be less
broad in scope: it applies only to commercial distributors and
explicitly excludes losses "relating to any actual or alleged
intellectual property infringement", for instance.

> 
> > [...]
> > > VI. General Terms
> > > 
> > > 1. You may not use, modify, reproduce, derive from, (re)distribute, or
> > > sublicense This Product, or portion(s) thereof, except as expressly provided
> > > under this License. Any attempt (even if permitted by applicable law) otherwise
> > > to use, modify, reproduce, derive from, (re)distribute, or sublicense This
> > > Product, or portion(s) thereof, automatically and immediately terminates Your
> > > rights under this License.
> > 
> > This is non-free, as explained by Ken Arromdee in
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2008/01/msg00132.html
> 
> Please get out of your US-centric world.

Wait, are you accusing an Italian guy of being US-centric?
That's kinda weird...  :-|

Anyway, IMHO, there's nothing US-centric in my (or Ken Arromdee's) line
of reasoning.  The clause talks about "applicable law" and says that, if
you exercise any right granted by applicable law, but not by the
license, then you lose any rights granted by the license.

Fair use is just a (US-centric) example of such law-granted rights.
Fair dealing would be a UK-centric example.
Eccezioni e limitazioni (della legge sul diritto d'autore) would be an
Italian-centric example.
And so forth...


Same old disclaimers: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP.

-- 
 http://frx.netsons.org/progs/scripts/refresh-pubring.html
 New! Version 0.6 available! What? See for yourself!
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4

Attachment: pgpjPMfgG8qke.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: