Short copyright notice in script file

Alexander Block <ablock RemoveThis @blocksoftware.net> wrote:
> I'm not in this list, please set me in CC when replying.
>
> I'm packaging a script (cnetworkmanager) at the moment which contains a
> small python script [1] that contains a very short copyright/legal notice:
>
> # (c) 2004 Matt Johnston <matt @ ucc asn au>
> # This code may be freely used and modified for any purpose.
>
> Is it ok to use such code in debian packages?

There's no clear permission to distribute in any way, so it's not
great. I believe we're unlikely to get sued for it, but it would be
better if Matt Johnston had used a widely-known licence instead of
that. Best course of action is to request relicensing.

I'm not sure whether ftpmaster would let that in as-is or not.

Hope that helps,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST RemoveThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster RemoveThis @lists.debian.org

Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
> Alexander Block wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I'm not in this list, please set me in CC when replying.
>>
>> I'm packaging a script (cnetworkmanager) at the moment which contains
>> a small python script [1] that contains a very short copyright/legal
>> notice:
>>
>> # (c) 2004 Matt Johnston <matt @ ucc asn au>
>> # This code may be freely used and modified for any purpose.
>>
>> Is it ok to use such code in debian packages?
>
> No mention about distribution of code and distribution of modified code.
>
> ciao
> cate
So does this mean that it's not possible to use this script inside
Debian? If not, I'm going to ask the author (Matt Johnston) if he can
send me a version with a modified copyright notice.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST DeleteThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster DeleteThis @lists.debian.org

MJ Ray wrote:
> Alexander Block <ablock RemoveThis @blocksoftware.net> wrote:
>
>> I'm not in this list, please set me in CC when replying.
>>
>> I'm packaging a script (cnetworkmanager) at the moment which contains a
>> small python script [1] that contains a very short copyright/legal notice:
>>
>> # (c) 2004 Matt Johnston <matt @ ucc asn au>
>> # This code may be freely used and modified for any purpose.
>>
>> Is it ok to use such code in debian packages?
>>
>
> There's no clear permission to distribute in any way, so it's not
> great. I believe we're unlikely to get sued for it, but it would be
> better if Matt Johnston had used a widely-known licence instead of
> that. Best course of action is to request relicensing.
>
> I'm not sure whether ftpmaster would let that in as-is or not.
>
> Hope that helps,
>

Hello again,

thanks for the response. I asked Matt about changing the copyright
notice and he changed it to the following:

# (c) 2004 Matt Johnston <matt @ ucc asn au>
# This code may be freely used, distributed, relicensed, and modified
for any
# purpose.

Does that sound ok for Debian?

Best regards,
Alex


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST RemoveThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster RemoveThis @lists.debian.org

Alexander Block <ablock.DeleteThis@blocksoftware.net> writes:

> So does this mean that it's not possible to use this script inside
> Debian?

It means that Debian has no license to redistribute the work.

> If not, I'm going to ask the author (Matt Johnston) if he can send
> me a version with a modified copyright notice.

You would do well to recommend he choose an existing license that is
widely used, long examined, and known to result in works that are free
software.

The Expat license terms <URL:http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt>
are very simple and seem closest to his apparent intent.

--
\ "A cynic is a man who, when he smells flowers, looks around for |
`\ a coffin." —Henry L. Mencken |
_o__) |
Ben Finney


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org

Alexander Block <ablock.DeleteThis@blocksoftware.net> writes:

> So does this mean that it's not possible to use this script inside
> Debian?

It means that Debian has no license to redistribute the work.

> If not, I'm going to ask the author (Matt Johnston) if he can send
> me a version with a modified copyright notice.

You would do well to recommend he choose an existing license that is
widely used, long examined, and known to result in works that are free
software.

The Expat license terms <URL:http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt>
are very simple and seem closest to his apparent intent.

--
\ “A cynic is a man who, when he smells flowers, looks around for |
`\ a coffin.� —Henry L. Mencken |
_o__) |
Ben Finney


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org

On Friday 13 March 2009 03:23:55 pm Ben Finney wrote:
> Alexander Block <ablock.TakeThisOut@blocksoftware.net> writes:
>
> > So does this mean that it's not possible to use this script inside
> > Debian?
>
> It means that Debian has no license to redistribute the work.

Just in the interest of clearing up common copyright law misunderstandings, the right to redistribute is not a matter of copyright law. If I have the right to copy a work with no further explicit conditions or restrictions, I have the right to distribute those copies in the same way I have the right to give away my initial copy under the first sale doctrine. Copyright law is only interested in the acts that involve *copying*, everything after that is controlled by contract law. It is often the case that a right to copy is granted on the condition that the grantee accepts the condition that he not distribute that copy... but it requires an explicit contract to setup that arrangement, it is not the default. The default is that you can do whatever you want with the copies you rightfully posses.

Ditto for derivative works. If I have the right to create a derivative work I have the implicit right to sell/transfer/distribute that work unless restricted by further contractual obligations.

Seems the upstream author intent here is clear, and while I appreciate the objectives of those seeking to limit license proliferation, we don't need to make up claims about what rights are and are not granted to persue those objectives. Debian would be well within the law to distribute this code under the original terms specified.

-Sean

--
Sean Kellogg
e: skellogg.TakeThisOut@gmail.com
w: http://blog.probonogeek.org/

Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time.
We are the ones we've been waiting for.
We are the change that we seek.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org

Alexander Block wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
>> There's no clear permission to distribute in any way, so it's not
>> great. I believe we're unlikely to get sued for it, but it would be
>> better if Matt Johnston had used a widely-known licence instead of
>> that. Best course of action is to request relicensing.
> [snip]
> thanks for the response. I asked Matt about changing the copyright
> notice and he changed it to the following:
>
> # (c) 2004 Matt Johnston <matt @ ucc asn au>
> # This code may be freely used, distributed, relicensed, and modified for
> any
> # purpose.
>
> Does that sound ok for Debian?

It is still not a great license, but the reference to distributing helps,
and I belive the word relicense implicitly grants rights to create
derivitives, (since there are no restirctions placed on the new license the
new license can allow derivitives.)

If the version distributed is modified, you should extend the notice to
declare what license you choose to relicense it under. The Expat license is
a good choice.

IANAL, IANADD.



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org

On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 09:25:42AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> The Expat license terms <URL:http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt>
> are very simple and seem closest to his apparent intent.

For some scripts, even that is excessively long.

What I personally use is a note of the form "You may treat this file as if it
were in the public domain."

--
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, Jyväskylä, Finland
http://antti-juhani.kaijanaho.fi/newblog/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/antti-juhani/


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org

On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 6:56 PM, Francesco Poli <frx.TakeThisOut@firenze.linux.it> wrote:

> The CC public domain dedication (one of the few things Creative Commons
> got right, IMHO), is much more verbose:
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/

There is also CC0, which is intended as a more universal PD dedication

http://creativecommons.org/license/zero/

--
bye,
pabs

http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org

Sean Kellogg <skellogg.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just in the interest of clearing up common copyright law
> misunderstandings, the right to redistribute is not a matter of
> copyright law. [...]

Distribution is mentioned explicitly as secondary infringement of
copyright in UK legislation (Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988
as amended, s23). There's also Section 18: Infringement by issue of
copies to the public; and Section 20: Infringement by communication to
the public.

Please give references that illustrate the scope of opinions stated
here. Sadly, debian cannot always rely on US law, can it?

Thanks,
--
MJ Ray (slef)
Webmaster for hire, statistician and online shop builder for a small
worker cooperative http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
(Notice http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html) tel:+44-844-4437-237


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org

* Francesco Poli <frx.DeleteThis@firenze.linux.it> [090315 17:22]:
> Your main point seems to be that, apart from some fringe cases (people
> misusing the term as if it were equivalent to "shareware"), there's no
> serious dispute as to what "public domain" means.

There is the problem with US goverment works. Those are public domain in
the USA but one of the recent discussions showed they are not public
domain outside.

Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org

On Friday 13 March 2009 04:54:49 pm Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 15:45:38 -0700 Sean Kellogg wrote:
>
> > On Friday 13 March 2009 03:23:55 pm Ben Finney wrote:
> > > Alexander Block <ablock.TakeThisOut@blocksoftware.net> writes:
> > >
> > > > So does this mean that it's not possible to use this script inside
> > > > Debian?
> > >
> > > It means that Debian has no license to redistribute the work.
> >
> > Just in the interest of clearing up common copyright law
> > misunderstandings, the right to redistribute is not a matter of
> > copyright law. If I have the right to copy a work with no further
> > explicit conditions or restrictions, I have the right to distribute
> > those copies in the same way I have the right to give away my initial
> > copy under the first sale doctrine. Copyright law is only interested in
> > the acts that involve *copying*, everything after that is controlled by
> > contract law.
>
> Alexander, if you want your address to be dropped from this sub-thread,
> just say so...
>
> Sean, what you say seems to make perfectly sense, and indeed I cannot
> find any reference to "distribution" in the Berne Convention.
> But, on the other hand, could you please explain me how it reconciles
> with the actual text of copyright laws?

Sorry for the delay in responding... I was away this weekend on a much needed mini-vacation.

> U.S. copyright law [1] states, in section 106:
>
> [...]
> | the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do
> | and to authorize any of the following:
> [...]
> | (3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to
> | the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental,
> | lease, or lending;
>
> Italian authors' right law (legge sul diritto d'autore) [2] states, in
> article 17:
>
> | 1. Il diritto esclusivo di distribuzione ha per oggetto la messa in
> | commercio o in circolazione, o comunque a disposizione, del pubblico,
> | con qualsiasi mezzo ed a qualsiasi titolo, dell'originale dell'opera o
> | degli esemplari di essa
> [...]
>
> which roughly translates in:
>
> ] 1. The exclusive right to distribute deals with the act of selling or
> ] circulating, or anyway making available, to the public, by any means
> ] and for any title, the original work or its copies
> [...]
>
>
> Since IANAL, I am probably missing something important in the picture.
> Could you please explain?

Honestly... I can't reconcile the two. Not without doing a bunch of research that would require access to legal text that I don't have anymore... and even then, it may be an unanswered question (there are a bunch in copyright law). The First Sale doctrine is, of course, the best example of why Sec. 106(3) is problematic. Once I have a rightfully acquired copy of a book, I can resell that book and the copyright holder cannot restrict that. My only guess is that we need to read the phrase "distribute copies" as a very unified term. You can distribute your one copy, but you cannot copy for the purposes of distribution... that sort of thing.

It's not a very satisfying answer... but it's certainly a good question. I think, in practice, it doesn't come up and certainly isn't litigated because if someone has been given the right to duplicate freely, they probably have contractual obligations that restrain the purpose and distribution of those copies. It's the rare case that an author would allow for unlimited duplication but have a problem with distribution. If you have a problem with distribution, just limit the duplication grant.

Sorry I couldn't be more helpful,
Sean

--
Sean Kellogg
e: skellogg.TakeThisOut@gmail.com
w: http://blog.probonogeek.org/

Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time.
We are the ones we've been waiting for.
We are the change that we seek.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org

On Monday 16 March 2009 04:17:35 am MJ Ray wrote:
> Sean Kellogg <skellogg.DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Just in the interest of clearing up common copyright law
> > misunderstandings, the right to redistribute is not a matter of
> > copyright law. [...]
>
> Distribution is mentioned explicitly as secondary infringement of
> copyright in UK legislation (Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988
> as amended, s23). There's also Section 18: Infringement by issue of
> copies to the public; and Section 20: Infringement by communication to
> the public.
>
> Please give references that illustrate the scope of opinions stated
> here. Sadly, debian cannot always rely on US law, can it?

Damned if I do... damned if I don't. Can't really help the UK if they have decided to extend copyright law to mean something beyond the rights surrounding copying of a thing. Copyright law has no more business governing what one does with a *thing* after it has been produced than patent law has to do with trademarks. The concepts all intersect in interesting ways, but the scope of the subject matter is reasonable well defined.

But, seriously, I'm not gonna play the "not in my jurisdiction game"... it's a game one cannot possible win, and ultimately not very interesting or helpful.

-Sean

--
Sean Kellogg
e: skellogg.DeleteThis@gmail.com
w: http://blog.probonogeek.org/

Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time.
We are the ones we've been waiting for.
We are the change that we seek.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org