GPL v3

> (In particular, it's my view that since the GPL is not
a contract, and
> as such is revocable at will, software under the GPLv2
clearly violates
> the Debian Tentacles-of-Evil test, and therefore is not
Debian-free.
> But obviously no one from the Debian community dare
agree.  IANAL; TINLA.)
> 

What's amusing is that the Debian guidelines actually were
designed explicitly with the GPL in
mind, and now you are saying even the GPL v2 violates the
Guidelines.  Suppose that is true, and
since the GPL came first, then it is the Guidelines that
failed its purpose rather than the GPL
fails to follow the Guidelines.  Again this is supposing
what you said was true, which I think
most people do not agree with.  

Think about saying the Declaration of Independence failed to
satisfy the US Constitution.  

The same can be said of some people who judge whether the
GPL is open source.

Andy Tai scripsit:

> What's amusing is that the Debian guidelines actually
were designed
> explicitly with the GPL in mind, and now you are saying
even the GPL
> v2 violates the Guidelines.

In fact I didn't say that.  I just don't believe that the
Tentacles of
Evil test is a direct consequence of the guidelines, but
rather an extra
additional requirement for Debian-free-ness.

In particular, if I hold the copyright on work W, and issue
it under the
GPLv2, and then change my mind (or have it changed for me)
and revoke
the applicability of the GPLv2 to W, no one has standing to
challenge
me in court except under the very shaky theory of equitable
estoppel --
which at most protects people who have already exercised
their rights
under the GPL.

> Think about saying the Declaration of Independence
failed to satisfy
> the US Constitution.

The DoI is a great political act of rhetoric.  It isn't law.

-- 
Deshil Holles eamus.  Deshil Holles eamus.  Deshil Holles
eamus.
Send us, bright one, light one, Horhorn, quickening, and
wombfruit. (3x)
Hoopsa, boyaboy, hoopsa!  Hoopsa, boyaboy, hoopsa!  Hoopsa,
boyaboy, hoopsa!
  -- Joyce, Ulysses, "Oxen of the Sun"      
cowanccil.org

Quoting Andy Tai (lichengtaiyahoo.com):

> What's amusing is that the Debian guidelines actually
were designed
> explicitly with the GPL in mind, and now you are saying
even the GPL
> v2 violates the Guidelines.  Suppose that is true, and
since the GPL
> came first, then it is the Guidelines that failed its
purpose rather
> than the GPL fails to follow the Guidelines.

I believe that was the earlier poster's intended point.

The Tentacles of Evil Test, Dissident Test, and Desert
Island Test are
heuristics employed by some debian-legal denizens primarily
as, IMVAO,
a plausible-sounding way to dispense with any residual sense
of
proportion and context.  I've seen them used to bolster
far-fetched
objections against, e.g., the Creative Commons Attribution
ShareAlike
2.0 licence.  These things then get written up on
"summary" Web pages,
with the implication that they somehow speak for Debian.

-- 
Cheers,             
Rick Moen                 "Anger makes dull men witty,
but it keeps them poor."
ricklinuxmafia.com                                   --
Elizabeth Tudor

On 1/25/06, Andy Tai <lichengtaiyahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
> Think about saying the Declaration of Independence
failed to satisfy the US Constitution.
[...]

OK, I'll think about it.

The references to God and the Creator violate the separation
of Church
and State in the First Amendment.

You were saying...? :-P

Cheers,
Ben

> The DoI is a great political act of rhetoric.  It isn't
law.
> 

It never ascribed to be.  It was an explanation; that's all.

Matthew Flaschen

Quoting John Cowan (cowanccil.org):

> In fact I didn't say that.  I just don't believe that
the Tentacles of
> Evil test is a direct consequence of the guidelines,
but rather an extra
> additional requirement for Debian-free-ness.

..._if that_.  I caution against hasty assumptions of
authority.

I checked Debian's General Resolutions (GRs), rulings of the
technical
committee, actions of the Debian Project Leader (DPL), the
Debian
Constitution, and, really, all other specific things that
can be
reasonably claimed to "speak for Debian", seeking
to find what authority
exists for several much-cited Web pages & postings on
the subject, e.g.,

  http://pe
ople.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html
  DFSG and Software License FAQ (Draft)
  [...]
  Authors:  Barak A. Pearlmutter with help from Joe Moore,
Mark Rafn, 
  Thomas Bushnell BSG, Richard Braakman, Henning Makholm,
Anthony Towns, 
  Jeremy Hankins, Florian Weimer, Thomas Hood, James
Devenish, Glenn Maynard.

(Note that Anthony Towns is a current member of the
Technical Committee, 
current member of the FTP Master triumvirate, a current
member of the Bug
Tracking System group, and a past Release Manager.)

  http://
people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.html
  debian-legal Summary of Creative Commons 2.0 Licenses
  Author: Evan Prodromou

  http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/05/msg00118.
html
  Debian-legal summary of the OSL v2.0
  From: Jeremy Hankins

  http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00952.
html
  License of Open Solaris CDDL
  From: MJ Ray

My comment on the CDDL "analysis":  http://linuxga
zette.net/116/tag/1.html

  The "patents" comments are tautologically true
-- but would be so
  _regardless_ of licence. That is, _any_ codebase adversely
encumbered
  by patents is non-free/proprietary, irrespective of what
licence
  provisions would otherwise apply. 

  That other bit about fixed attributions making a work
non-free/proprietary 
  is one reason why, although I'm a long-time subscriber to
debian-legal, 
  I only rarely read it, in order to safeguard my blood
pressure: Author 
  attributions may not be stripped in derivative works by
_default action 
  of copyright law_, so it is utter lunacy to assert, as
poster Garrett 
  and numerous others do, that clauses to that same effect
make the work 
  non-free through it "failing the Chinese Dissident
Test". 

  That is a perfect example of the aforementioned problem of
certain
  posters being context-challenged and ignorant of the law. 


Anyhow, the referenced Web pages and posts have no authority
per se.
Some, such as the "DFSG and Software License FAQ"
profess to somehow
embody the "consensus" of the public mailing list,
debian-legal, which
itself has no particular authority per se.  In one place,
could be the
Developer Reference, Debian developers are advised to
_consult_
debian-legal on any significant concerns.  They are nowhere
told they
must abide by anything they hear there -- let alone how to
determine
which such advice to heed.  

In fact, pragmatically, DFSG-ness is determined by each
individual
Debian developer as to their respective packages, and those
on which
they do non-maintainer updates (NMUs).  They could in theory
be
overruled by the ftp master site maintainers, a GR, or maybe
the DPL or
delegates thereof -- but in practice this doesn't happen.

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006, Rick Moen wrote:
>   That other bit about fixed attributions making a work
non-free/proprietary 
>   is one reason why, although I'm a long-time
subscriber to debian-legal, 
>   I only rarely read it, in order to safeguard my blood
pressure: Author 
>   attributions may not be stripped in derivative works
by _default action 
>   of copyright law_, so it is utter lunacy to assert,
as poster Garrett 
>   and numerous others do, that clauses to that same
effect make the work 
>   non-free through it "failing the Chinese
Dissident Test". 
> 
>   That is a perfect example of the aforementioned
problem of certain
>   posters being context-challenged and ignorant of the
law. 

Copyright law protects someone who wants to be attributed. 
The Chinese
Dissident Test protects someone who doesn't.  They're both
about attribution,
but about very different aspects of it.

They have nothing to do with each other.

I'm resetting the subject. Was "GPLv3" but this
particular email had little
to do with it.

> On Thu, 26 Jan 2006, Rick Moen wrote:
> >   That other bit about fixed attributions making a
work 
> non-free/proprietary 
> >   is one reason why, although I'm a long-time
subscriber to 
> debian-legal, 
> >   I only rarely read it, in order to safeguard my
blood 
> pressure: Author 
> >   attributions may not be stripped in derivative
works by 
> _default action 
> >   of copyright law_, so it is utter lunacy to
assert, as 
> poster Garrett 
> >   and numerous others do, that clauses to that
same effect 
> make the work 
> >   non-free through it "failing the Chinese
Dissident Test". 
> > 
> >   That is a perfect example of the aforementioned
problem of certain
> >   posters being context-challenged and ignorant of
the law. 
> 
> Copyright law protects someone who wants to be
attributed.  
> The Chinese Dissident Test protects someone who
doesn't.  
> They're both about attribution, but about very
different 
> aspects of it.
> 
> They have nothing to do with each other.

I'm now very confused. Is there some specific issue about
attribution
notices that is causing problems at Debian? Who is this
hypothetical Chinese
dissident we're supposed to be worrying about? How does this
all affect our
review of proposed licenses?

It turns out that certain kinds of attribution notices do
cause heartburn
for some open source denizens. Are you familiar with Exhibit
B in
http://www.sugarcrm.com/crm/open-source/public-licen
se.html?

/Larry

** Lawrence Rosen
** Rosenlaw & Einschlag, technology law offices
** Stanford University School of Law, Lecturer in Law
** 3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
** 707-485-1242  *  fax: 707-485-1243
** Author of "Open Source Licensing: Software Freedom
**    and Intellectual Property Law" (Prentice Hall
2004)
** [www.rosenlaw.com] 

Quoting Ken Arromdee (arromdeerahul.net):

> On Thu, 26 Jan 2006, Rick Moen wrote:
> > That other bit about fixed attributions making a
work
> > non-free/proprietary is one reason why, although
I'm a long-time
> > subscriber to debian-legal, I only rarely read it,
in order to
> > safeguard my blood pressure: Author attributions
may not be
> > stripped in derivative works by _default action of
copyright law_,
> > so it is utter lunacy to assert, as poster Garrett
and numerous
> > others do, that clauses to that same effect make
the work non-free
> > through it "failing the Chinese Dissident
Test". 
> > 
> > That is a perfect example of the aforementioned
problem of certain
> > posters being context-challenged and ignorant of
the law. 
> 
> Copyright law protects someone who wants to be
attributed.

It also takes into account those who don't:  By statute (USA
jurisdiction, at least; others possibly), attribution is a
guaranteed
right but can be disclaimed -- see 17 USC 106A.  Further, a
"Chinese
dissident" who didn't wish to identified could
obviously use either a
pseudonym or no name at all.

The (US-based) critic posting to debian-legal asserted that
Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 is non-free (in part) because it
would
prevent a "Chinese dissident" from avoiding
identification as author.
Well, it simply doesn't.  A moment's contemplation of either
the
mechanics of authorship or of copyright law would have
revealed that to
him.  Thus my point.

> The Chinese Dissident Test protects someone who
doesn't.  They're both
> about attribution, but about very different aspects of
it.
> 
> They have nothing to do with each other.

You really didn't pay a lot of attention to what I said.  I
hope the
above will help clarify.

Anyhow, far be it from me, within our metaphorical glass
house, to throw
the stone of accusing others of being armchair lawyers, but
the usual
use of the "Chinese Dissident Test" on
debian-legal is exactly that sort
of excursion into legal blunderland, which in my view
renders (typical)
postings on that mailing list a very poor guide to
DFSG-freeness.

Additionally, for reasons I cited elsewhere in my earlier
post, those 
postings (and Web pages abstracted from them) have no
authority to speak
for the Debian Project.  (Thank heavens for small favours.)

-- 
Cheers,             
Rick Moen                 "Anger makes dull men witty,
but it keeps them poor."
ricklinuxmafia.com                                   --
Elizabeth Tudor

Quoting Lawrence Rosen (lrosenrosenlaw.com):

> I'm now very confused. Is there some specific issue
about attribution
> notices that is causing problems at Debian? 

No, but a poster to debian-legal claimed there was
(concerning an
attribution clause in several of the v. 2.0-generation
Creative Commons
licences), and his view is frequently cited as supposedly
representing
the view of the Debian Project.  Fortunately, for reasons I
mentioned, 
the assumed authority for this claim is absent.

I've just now had to refresh my memory about the specific
objection,
since it's been a long time since I read the
"summary" page.  (As it
turns out, I'd misremembered the bogus objection in
question.  There 
have been other licences to which the cited objection was
raised.)

> Who is this hypothetical Chinese dissident we're
supposed to be 
> worrying about?

The "Dissident Test" is a gedankenexperiment
test-case scenario often
applied to licences discussed on the debian-legal mailing
list, that 
aim to arrive at opinions about the licences' DFSG-freeness.
 It asks:
Do the terms of this licence prevent a user/creator of the
covered work 
or its derivatives from hiding his/her identity, e.g.,
because the
local government is hostile to that activity?

Please note that it is not _in_ the DFSG.

> How does this all affect our review of proposed
licenses?

It does not.  It's not concerned (per se) with OSI affairs
at all.
Also, the licences in question in this case typically are
not applied to
software.


As mentioned, I've refreshed my recollection of the
debian-legal
critics' remarks on several CC 2.0 licences, as summarised
by my friend
Evan Prodromou at http://
people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.html .

One critic objected to a clause in those licences requiring
redistributors and creators of derivative works to remove
attributions
upon request from the upstream author.  He/she claimed that
this
violates the DFSG3 (aka OSD3) requirement that any licensee
must be
allowed to make and distribute modified versions of a work.

I'm sorry, but that's just silly:  Downstream authors remain
substatively completely free to make and distribute any sort
of
derivatives whatsoever, their right to keep using the
upstream
creator's name notwithstanding.  That is not a substantive
restriction; 
I'm no less substantively free if I'm obliged to change
"Fred Bloggs" to
"someone who doesn't wish to be identified".