Re: (d-l fw:) [gNewSense-users] PFV call for help.

[Karl Goetz]

On Thu, 2008-01-24 at 08:26 +1030, Karl Goetz wrote:
> First reply is the only one i got, so i assume theres not to much they
> want to add :)
> kk

oops, forgot to add a link to the archive:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2008/01/msg00181.html
kk

> 
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> From: John Halton 
> To: address@hidden
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [gNewSense-users] PFV call for help.]
> Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 11:28:45 +0000
> 
> On Jan 23, 2008 10:58 AM, Karl Goetz <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> Here, for the record - and to save Francesco Poli the trouble ;-) - is
> the full text of the relevant section of the krb5 copyright file:
> 
> -------------------------------------------
> 
> The following copyright and permission notice applies to the
> OpenVision Kerberos Administration system located in kadmin/create,
> kadmin/dbutil, kadmin/passwd, kadmin/server, lib/kadm5, and portions
> of lib/rpc:
> 
>    Copyright, OpenVision Technologies, Inc., 1996, All Rights Reserved
> 
>    WARNING: Retrieving the OpenVision Kerberos Administration system
>    source code, as described below, indicates your acceptance of the
>    following terms.  If you do not agree to the following terms, do not
>    retrieve the OpenVision Kerberos administration system.
> 
>    You may freely use and distribute the Source Code and Object Code
>    compiled from it, with or without modification, but this Source
>    Code is provided to you "AS IS" EXCLUSIVE OF ANY WARRANTY,
>    INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR
>    FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR ANY OTHER WARRANTY, WHETHER
>    EXPRESS OR IMPLIED.  IN NO EVENT WILL OPENVISION HAVE ANY LIABILITY
>    FOR ANY LOST PROFITS, LOSS OF DATA OR COSTS OF PROCUREMENT OF
>    SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES, OR FOR ANY SPECIAL, INDIRECT, OR
>    CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THIS AGREEMENT, INCLUDING,
>    WITHOUT LIMITATION, THOSE RESULTING FROM THE USE OF THE SOURCE
>    CODE, OR THE FAILURE OF THE SOURCE CODE TO PERFORM, OR FOR ANY
>    OTHER REASON.
> 
>    OpenVision retains all copyrights in the donated Source Code. OpenVision
>    also retains copyright to derivative works of the Source Code, whether
>    created by OpenVision or by a third party. The OpenVision copyright
>    notice must be preserved if derivative works are made based on the
>    donated Source Code.
> 
>    OpenVision Technologies, Inc. has donated this Kerberos
>    Administration system to MIT for inclusion in the standard
>    Kerberos 5 distribution.  This donation underscores our
>    commitment to continuing Kerberos technology development
>    and our gratitude for the valuable work which has been
>    performed by MIT and the Kerberos community.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Moving on to consider the specific points raised:
> 
> > * line 18-21: "Export of this software from the United States of America
> > may require
> > a specific license from the United States Government.  It is the
> > responsibility of any person or organization contemplating export to
> > obtain such a license before exporting."
> > This section may not suit freedom 2: The freedom to redistribute copies
> > so you can help your neighbor.
> 
> I don't think that clause is a problem. US export laws will (or won't)
> apply regardless of what the licence says, so this is really just a
> matter of information. It doesn't affect the DFSG-freeness of the
> software.
> 
> > * line 81-83: "OpenVision
> >    also retains copyright to derivative works of the Source Code, whether
> >    created by OpenVision or by a third party." I think this could threat
> > this software freedom.
> 
> This is rather an odd one. It's not clear in the context of the
> relevant paragraph whether this is just making a statement of fact
> about the Source Code as you may be using it, or whether it is seeking
> to claim ownership of any modifications that licensees make. If the
> latter, then I suspect that in a lot of jurisdictions it will not
> actually achieve the desired effect - for example, UK copyright law
> requires an assignment of copyright to be in writing and signed by the
> assignor.
> 
> The question is then whether this interferes with software freedom. If
> you create a derivative work from the software, then (making the *big*
> assumption that the clause is legally effective) the copyright in that
> work, including your modifications, will vest in OpenVision. However,
> you still have the benefit of the licence terms as regards those
> modifications, so it doesn't interfere with your freedom on a
> practical level.
> 
> What it does potentially mean is that OpenVision can *additionally*
> license your modifications under non-free licence terms, which many
> developers may consider undesirable. But OpenVision would be taking a
> risk if they actually did this, given that it is highly doubtful that
> they can claim legal ownership of the copyright in licensees'
> modifications on the basis of this licence provision.
> 
> It probably wouldn't hurt to raise this with OpenVision, if possible.
> Do they consider this clause to give them ownership of copyright in
> any modifications made to the software, or is it simply saying that
> your rights under the licence do not affect the ultimate ownership of
> the copyright?
> 
> I don't think the DFSG-freeness is affected in either event, but if
> OpenVision are trying to claim ownership of modifications then this is
> unusual, undesirable and probably ineffective.
> 
> John
> 
> (TINLA)
> 
> 
-- 
Karl Goetz <address@hidden>