Why we must ship at least some licenses (was: Manoj, ...
Hello,
On Sun, Aug 16, 1998 at 05:30:47PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Marcus" == Marcus Brinkmann <Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de> writes:
> Marcus> On Sun, Aug 16, 1998 at 03:45:03PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Marcus> As a matter of fact, I think it is already wrong that we
> Marcus> don't ship the GPL, LGPL, BSD and Artistic license with the
> Marcus> binary packages. And you were saying that you don't want
> Marcus> immutable license documents in Debian main at all.
>
> Yep. Not in main. But in verbatim, which is still part fo
> Debian. Ad no law is broken. The license goves terms under which
> distribution is possible. Nothing requires licenses to be bundled
> with the products them selves.
I quote the GPL for you:
" 1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's
source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you
conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate
copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the
notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty;
and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License
along with the Program."
[Note the last sentence. This applies to source code only, but later:]
" 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:"
[Note the part "under the terms of Sections 1 and 2"]
We can only enforce it if we ship the license with
the package. If you want to be clever about this, I'll not follow you, as I
think this is not only asking for legal problems but also bad for the
reputation of Debian.
It was not agreed upon the question if the verbatim section should be an
integrated part of Debian at all. There have been people supporting it and
people who didn't think it should be (beside me and you).
> Books are copyrighted too. What was the last tiem you say a
> license on a paperback?
According to my dictionary, a paperbook is a "book with a thin cardboard
cover". I don't see what this has to do with the current topic, but I have
seen quite a few paperbacks with a copyright inside.
> We distribute the licese as a courtesy. And even that is
> satisfied as long as the license exists on the system
I don't think so. From the BSD:
"2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution."
The relevant part of the GPL is quoted above, the LGPL is the same.
Of the four copyrights under /usr/doc/copyright/*, only the Artistic license
does not conatin such a clause (if I didn't missed it).
This are three core licenses which require that you ship the license with
the software. Again: We are not only shipping complete Debian systems, we
have binary packages on the ftp site. The binary package is a simple ar
file, where you can extract the software from. Without getting the
copyright, as required at least by the GPL, LGPL and the BSD license.
> >> You fail to mention that one way of appeasing my arguments is
> >> to allow stuff like the FSSTND in main, or atleast in verbatim.
>
> Marcus> Something which is completely independent from this serious
> Marcus> issue. If we ship FSSTND in main is completely independent
> Marcus> from the fact if we ship the GPL in main.
>
> Correct. But it provides context. Anyway, there is really no
> legal requirement for shipping the GPL in main. And I am not
> advocatig removing the GPL from Debian. Only removing it from main
> into the verbatim section.
Why make an exception for the GPL (and the other three)? This is
inconsequent. To be consequent you would have to remove all copyrights from
all main packages, and put them in the verbatim section. Not only is this
asking for legal troubles (at least for the GPL, LGPL, BSD), but it is also
inpractical and against the spirit.
> There is no legal requirement for us to distribute the
> licenses at all. I agree it is a good idea to. And that we should.
You are wrong. Please read the licenses more carefully.
But, however, I'm happy that you agree that we should distribute them (it is
always more fun to do something voluntarily). So, if you agree that we
should distribute the complete and copyright along with the binary packages,
I'm happy to close this thread (I'm willing to accept the current suboptimal
solution until dpkg can handle multiple packages containing the same file).
> >> I am sorry you can't conduct a technical discussion in a
> >> decorous and serious fashion. I do not think your tantrums and name
> >> calling really deserve much more of a response.
>
> Marcus> What name calling?
>
> Saying I create mischief? That my views on laws are
> disgusting?
This is my personal opinion, basing on what you said about (not) shipping
copyrights along the software. At least the licenses "GPL", "LPGL" and "BSD"
require us to ship the license with the software.
> >> And I say we should not have the exception even for copyright
> >> documents. They should be in the verbatim section, on another CD, but
> >> in an required package, and with all indications that they are an
> >> integral part of Debian.
>
> Integral part of debian.
This doesn't work. The license has to come with the software (maybe not for
all licenses, but at least for the GPL, LGPL and the BSD).
Even assuming this would not be true I'd still object making the verbatim
section an integral part of Debian just to put the copyright licenses there.
> Marcus> Debian does ship source packages and binary packages,
> Marcus> too. Everyone can download a binary package, and will not get
> Marcus> the copyright. This is a misconception.
>
> So what? No law reqiores that the copyright is bundled in. And
> /usr/doc/package/copyright should trell them where they can
> get it from.
The copyright itself requires it, at least the GPL, LGPL and the BSD.
The Artistic license does not seem to make it a requirement, and I didn't
checked other licenses.
> Marcus> The "verbatim" section was not about the copyrights of the
> Marcus> software we ship, but was about other immutable
> Marcus> documents. You choose to extend the discussion to copyrights
> Marcus> as well, and so far I have not heard any voice supporting you
> Marcus> in this opinion.
>
> And I have heard none supporting you either.
Sure. Well, I'm not going into "body-count" here, the participation in the
discussion was not high enough to measure the opinion of the majority.
> >> I shall leave the debian-devel list alone, and uninvolved in
> >> this debate after this message. Read the archives of debian-policy if
> >> you are interested in this issue.
>
> Marcus> This is a very serious issue. A copyright is not the funny
> Marcus> little text you ignore anyway. It is the only thing that
> Marcus> grants our rights.
>
> You keep repeating that non-sequitor. Do you really understand
> what we are talking about? Yes, the copyright is what gives us teh
> right to distribute. It, however, does not need be bundled in with
> every piece of software that is covered by it.
Actually, yes I know what we are talking about. And it seems that I read the
copyrights more carefully than you. The GPL, LGPL and BSD license make
it a requirement to ship the license with the source and the executable.
I didn't checked other, not so common copyrights.
> Alrteady we guarantee that /usr/doc/sopyright/* exist on every
> Debian system. That goes above and beyond the call of law.
This is not enough, I'm afraid. We are not only distributing complete
systems. We are also distributing single packages.
Thank you,
Marcus
--
"Rhubarb is no Egyptian god." Debian GNU/Linux finger brinkmd@
Marcus Brinkmann http://www.debian.org master.debian.org
Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de for public PGP Key
http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ PGP Key ID 36E7CD09
Reply to: