Bug#247337: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: lives_0.9.8.10-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED]]
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 01:14:49AM +0100, salsaman@xs4all.nl wrote:
> > <quote>
> > Additionally your debian/copyright file is incomplete and misses
> > (C)holders/license data. You have to include all such differences.
> > Like all of libOSC/*, some of the icons.
> >
>
> There was some code in colourspace.c which was by another author, it was
> basically minimal code (setting some conversion values in tables). All of
> this has now been rewritten from scratch. As far as I know the copyright
> file is up to date. If anybody finds something missing, let me know and I
> can add it in.
Great! Sounds like that would be solved now.
> > And next, it includes a mixture of GPL/LGPL v2/v2.1 and v3.
> > Now you need to check if all v2/v2.1 ones are "or any later". If not it
> > is undistributable.
> > </quote>
> >
>
> All of the LiVES code is licensed under the GPL v3 or LGPL v3. In fact, I
> made the change on the day that the GPL v3 was released, and am proud of
> that fact.
Hey, you beat me (win32-loader) by just one day! ;-)
> During the transition there may have been one or two files
> which were mistakenly left as GPL v2 or higher. I believe all such files
> have now been updated. If you find any files marked GPL2 or higher, please
> let me know and I will update them.
GPL v2 or higher files can be combined with GPL v3 code, so this is not a
problem as far as Debian is concerned. It's only a problem if they're v2
only without "or later". Would that be the case for any of your files?
> >> RFX.spec is a documentation file which documents a standard. I am happy
> >> to
> >> change the license for this to whatever you recommend (what does debian
> >> recommend for standards ?).
> >
> > GPL or LGPL would be fine.
>
> OK, I still need to make this one change, I will check it into CVS now.
Sorry, I was not particularly bright that day. GPL or LGPL is indeed fine for
Debian, in that it makes the document free (modifiable, etc), but I didn't
understand what you meant about a license "for standards".
When people write a standard, it's logical they don't want modified versions
to be also considered the same standard unless they previously sanction them.
But sometimes standard drafters (like the RFC) take this too far and forbid
moficication completely, making the document non-free.
If you wanted to allow modification only in case they give the standard another
name, you could draft a license specifically for this. That's what the Apache
folks did, but it's really a bad idea. It breaks GPL compatibility and it
abuses copyright to do something that really belongs to trademarks. For
version 2 of their license, it seems they realized this, and simply said:
<quote>
This License does not grant permission to use the [...] trademarks
</quote>
GPLv3 has a provision for something similar:
<quote>
Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, for material you
add to a covered work, you may (if authorized by the copyright holders of
that material) supplement the terms of this License with terms:
[...]
c) Prohibiting misrepresentation of the origin of that material, or
requiring that modified versions of such material be marked in
reasonable ways as different from the original version; or
[...]
e) Declining to grant rights under trademark law for use of some
trade names, trademarks, or service marks; or
</quote>
which you might find useful. Hope that helps!
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."
Reply to: