xf86xv.c patch
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Mr Rebe,
my apologixes for taking some of your time, but we (as Debian project)
are in the need to know under which nature (copyright and licence) the
patches you submitted to Xfree86 have been released, for the following
related CVS commit, in order to be able to import the fix into our source
tree:
http://cvsweb.xfree86.org/cvsweb/xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/common/xf86xv.c.diff?r1=1.37&r2=1.38
A simple written clarification that you either assert no copyright in this
change or intend to use the XFree86 1.0 or compatible license is fine.
The following is a form letter that explains details the nature of this
request.
Best Regards
Fabio M. Di Nitto
[This is a form letter.]
Some people are not aware that code such as bugfixes cannot easily be
shared from the XFree86 CVS repository without subjecting users of that
code to a new license, the "XFree86 1.1 License", which has been rejected
as unacceptable (due primarily but not solely to incompatibility with the
GNU General Public License) by most major Free Software and Open Source
operating system vendors.
There has been some question in the community as to whether the new license
applies to changes incorporated into the XFree86 CVS repository after 13
February 2004, when the relicensing was implemented. It is not known
whether XFree86 automatically applies the new license to code, such as
bugfixes, submitted to them by third parties.
David Dawes, the President of the XFree86 Project, Inc., has asserted on
the XFree86 "devel" mailing list that:
Assume that anything attributed to me is covered by the 1.1 licence
unless explicitly stated otherwise.[1]
To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Dawes has never made an explicit statement
otherwise under any circumstances. Furthermore, it is my understanding
that he does not answer emails inquiring as to whether this policy applies
to specific commits (I am not speaking only of mails to Mr. Dawes from
myself, either, but from some other contributors to XFree86 as well).
Moreover, Mr. Dawes feels that it is not necessary to explicitly assert his
(or the XFree86 Project, Inc.'s) copyright and license terms in
modifications that are made to the XFree86 CVS repository:
[In reference to the XFree86's statement on their license policy page[2],
"Refer to each source file for specific licence details":]
If you interpret that to apply to every revision of every file in
an active CVS repository, then you are kidding yourself.[3]
(Why it is challenging to add current and accurate copyright and license
information to source files in XFree86 CVS is a mystery to me, particularly
given past examples of precisely that[4][5].)
Fortunately, some of the changes made in the XFree86 CVS repository after
the relicensing on 2004-02-13[5] are trivial in nature. They are probably
not copyrightable at all, and I suspect the folks at the XFree86 Project,
Inc., agree -- but given the difficulty in obtaining answers to
straightforward questions, and the XFree86's Project's recent fundraising
efforts on their Web site, I'd hate to be mistaken and end up on the wrong
side of a copyright infringement suit. (It is possible to infringe clause
3 of the XFree86 1.1 license even if there is no applicable copyright
notice or license statement that makes it clear that the XFree86 1.1
actually applies to the file in question. Given that I know of Mr. Dawes's
stated intentions[1], even if I don't completely comprehend them, I may be
at risk for "willful" infringement under U.S. copyright law, and this is
not a risk I am willing to take, nor one to which I am willing to expose my
co-maintainers within Debian X Strike Force, the Debian Project in general,
or its users.
The good news is that it should be a piece of cake to reimplement trivial
changes with a clean provenance. This would not merely be advantageous to
Debian, but to anyone who wants to distribute a X Window System
implementation with a more homogeneous set of copyright licenses on it (a
welcome relief, I am sure, to those who have waded through the smorgasbord
of licenses that apply to the various parts of the XFree86 distribution).
I ask that clean-room reimplementors quote the following material when they
post their changes.
* I affirm that this modification is my own work.
* I affirm that I have not consulted source code more recent than
2004-02-12 from an XFree86 source code release or repository in the
preparation of this modification.
* I refuse to assert copyright in this modification. If I am unable
within a given legal jurisdiction to disclaim copyright in this
modification, I hereby place it in the public domain. If I am unable
within a given legal jurisdiction to place this modification in the
public domain, I release this modification to the public under the
following terms:
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a
copy of this software and associated documentation files (the
"Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including
without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish,
distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to
permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to
the following conditions:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included
in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT.
IN NO EVENT SHALL THE ABOVE LISTED COPYRIGHT HOLDER(S) BE LIABLE FOR ANY
CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT,
TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE
SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
[The above affirmation is unfortunately complex due to differing
notions worldwide about how copyright attaches, and whether it can be
deliberately forfeited. The copyright license above is the MIT/X11
license originally used by the X Window System sample implementation.
I did omit the final paragraph of the license, because it is not germane
to copyright law and is already protected under the right of
publicity[6] in the United States and elsewhere. For the sake of full
disclosure, here's the paragraph in question:
"Except as contained in this notice, the name(s) of the above
copyright holders shall not be used in advertising or otherwise to
promote the sale, use or other dealings in this Software without
prior written authorization."]
So, if you submit reimplemented code, PLEASE quote the above four
asterisked items, and state your assent to each one. Please trim out my
lengthy bracketed asides.
Please note that most trivial changes can be reimplemented by a person with
only a modest exposure to Make and C in far, far less time than it took me
to write this mail.
Thanks for your patience. If you have any questions, please contact the
Debian X Window System mailing list at <debian-x@lists.debian.org>.
[1] http://www.mail-archive.com/devel%40xfree86.org/msg05906.html
[2] http://www.xfree86.org/legal/licenses.html
[3] http://www.mail-archive.com/devel%40xfree86.org/msg05939.html
[4] Message-Id: <200308241737.h7OHbAn7007305@public.xfree86.org>
[5] Message-Id: <200402132358.i1DNwsCq044380@public.xfree86.org>
[6] http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/publicity.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFBWQhHhCzbekR3nhgRAqC6AJ9+DoUGka8IRt1RklA7zgciadkZ6QCgonwt
25SCpUkSVzFzNvzoFwWtD7k=
=G8z0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: