BCFG Public License
John Goerzen
The BCFG public license (below) seems pretty much like a standard BSD
+ advertising clause license. I can't quite seem to remember what the
current policy on that sort of license is. Plus, it's got some other
wording -- is it OK? Do any of you have any tips on what I might say
to the author regarding dropping the advertising clause? It's been so
long since I've seen that crop up that I don't really remember how
people were persuaded to do so.
This is from bcfg2, http://trac.mcs.anl.gov/projects/bcfg2.
Thanks,
-- John
BCFG Public License
Copyright (c) University of Chicago 1999.
1. The "Software", below, refers to the MCS Systems Administration Toolkit
(in either source-code, or binary form) and a "work based on the
Software" means a work based on either the Software, on part of the
Software, or on any derivative work of the Software under copyright law:
that is, a work containing all or a portion of the Software either
verbatim or with modifications. Each licensee is addressed as "you" or
"Licensee."
2. The University of Chicago as Operator of Argonne National Laboratory is
the copyright holder in the Software. The copyright holder reserves all
rights except those expressly granted to the Licensee herein and
U.S. Government license rights.
3. A copy or copies of the Software may be given to others, if you meet the
following conditions:
a) Copies in source code must include the copyright notice and this
license.
b) Copies in binary form must include the copyright notice and
this license in the documentation and/or other materials provided
with the copy.
4. All advertising materials, journal articles and documentation mentioning
features derived from or use of the Software must display the following
acknowledgment:
"This product includes software developed by the MCS Systems Group
at Argonne National Laboratory (http://www.mcs.anl.gov/systems/)."
In the event that the product being advertised includes an intact
distribution of the Software (with copyright and license included) then
this clause is waived.
5. You are encouraged to package modifications to the Software separately,
as patches to the Software.
6. If you modify a copy or copies of the Software or any portion of it,
thus forming a work based on the Software, and give a copy or copies of
such work to others, either in source code or binary form, you must meet
the following conditions:
a) The Software must carry prominent notices stating that you changed
specified portions of the Software.
b) The Software must display the following acknowledgment: "This product
includes software developed by and/or derived from work of Argonne
National Laboratory to which the U.S. Government retains certain
rights."
7. LICENSEE AGREES THAT THE EXPORT OF GOODS AND/OR TECHNICAL DATA FROM THE
UNITED STATES MAY REQUIRE SOME FORM OF EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE FROM THE
U.S. GOVERNMENT AND THAT FAILURE TO OBTAIN SUCH EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE
MAY RESULT IN CRIMINAL LIABILITY UNDER U.S. LAWS.
8. Portions of the Software resulted from work developed under a
U.S. Government contract and are subject to the following license: the
Government is granted for itself and others acting on its behalf a
paid-up, nonexclusive, irrevocable worldwide license in this computer
software to reproduce, prepare derivative works, and perform publicly
and display publicly.
9. The Software was prepared, in part, as an account of work sponsored by
an agency of the U.S. Government. Neither the United States, nor the
University of Chicago, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty
express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for
the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus,
product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not
infringe privately owned rights.
10. IN NO EVENT WILL THE UNITED STATES, OR THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO BE
LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES, INCLUDING DIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, OR
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES RESULTING FROM EXERCISE OF THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT
OR THE USE OF THE SOFTWARE.
END OF LICENSE
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-leg...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org
Henning Makholm
> The BCFG public license (below) seems pretty much like a standard BSD
> + advertising clause license. I can't quite seem to remember what the
> current policy on that sort of license is.
We accept them, but grudgingly.
> 7. LICENSEE AGREES THAT THE EXPORT OF GOODS AND/OR TECHNICAL DATA FROM THE
> UNITED STATES MAY REQUIRE SOME FORM OF EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE FROM THE
> U.S. GOVERNMENT AND THAT FAILURE TO OBTAIN SUCH EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE
> MAY RESULT IN CRIMINAL LIABILITY UNDER U.S. LAWS.
Does this mean that the license is only avaliable to those who agree
with the law? That would not be free.
--
Henning Makholm "We're trying to get it into the
parts per billion range, but no luck still."
Matthew Garrett
>> 7. LICENSEE AGREES THAT THE EXPORT OF GOODS AND/OR TECHNICAL DATA FROM THE
>> UNITED STATES MAY REQUIRE SOME FORM OF EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE FROM THE
>> U.S. GOVERNMENT AND THAT FAILURE TO OBTAIN SUCH EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE
>> MAY RESULT IN CRIMINAL LIABILITY UNDER U.S. LAWS.
>
> Does this mean that the license is only avaliable to those who agree
> with the law? That would not be free.
No, it means that the licensee is obliged to agree that a fact may be
true. "LICENSEE AGREES THAT LICENSE VIOLATION MAY RESULT IN LEGAL
ACTION" would hardly be controversial.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.ma...@srcf.ucam.org
Henning Makholm
> Henning Makholm <hen...@makholm.net> wrote:
>>> 7. LICENSEE AGREES THAT THE EXPORT OF GOODS AND/OR TECHNICAL DATA FROM THE
>>> UNITED STATES MAY REQUIRE SOME FORM OF EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE FROM THE
>>> U.S. GOVERNMENT AND THAT FAILURE TO OBTAIN SUCH EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE
>>> MAY RESULT IN CRIMINAL LIABILITY UNDER U.S. LAWS.
>> Does this mean that the license is only avaliable to those who agree
>> with the law? That would not be free.
> No, it means that the licensee is obliged to agree that a fact may be
> true.
And if that fact is not agreeable to me, I may not copy the software?
--
Henning Makholm "There is a danger that curious users may
occasionally unplug their fiber connector and look
directly into it to watch the bits go by at 100 Mbps."
Robinson Tryon
> Scripsit Matthew Garrett <mgar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
> > Henning Makholm <hen...@makholm.net> wrote:
>
> >>> 7. LICENSEE AGREES THAT THE EXPORT OF GOODS AND/OR TECHNICAL DATA FROM THE
> >>> UNITED STATES MAY REQUIRE SOME FORM OF EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE FROM THE
> >>> U.S. GOVERNMENT AND THAT FAILURE TO OBTAIN SUCH EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE
> >>> MAY RESULT IN CRIMINAL LIABILITY UNDER U.S. LAWS.
>
> >> Does this mean that the license is only avaliable to those who agree
> >> with the law? That would not be free.
>
> > No, it means that the licensee is obliged to agree that a fact may be
> > true.
>
> And if that fact is not agreeable to me, I may not copy the software?
I'm not sure if the license can be changed, but would it be acceptable
to merely *state* the fact, rather than requiring the user to agree to
it?
Something like:
THE EXPORT OF GOODS AND/OR TECHNICAL DATA FROM THE UNITED STATES MAY
REQUIRE SOME FORM OF EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE FROM THE U.S. GOVERNMENT;
FAILURE TO OBTAIN SUCH EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE MAY RESULT IN CRIMINAL
LIABILITY UNDER U.S. LAWS.
In order for a person to use software, they must agree to the
licensing terms. In this case, they don't have to agree that US
export laws may impose a burden upon them, they just are agreeing that
the licensor has warned them about the export laws.
-- Robinson Tryon
Matthew Garrett
> Scripsit Matthew Garrett <mgar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
>> true.
>
> And if that fact is not agreeable to me, I may not copy the software?
If you're unwilling to agree to truth statements, then yes, I'm entirely
happy with you not being permitted to copy the software. It strongly
implies that you're not competent to agree to any sort of license
statement.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.ma...@srcf.ucam.org
Stephen Gran
> Scripsit Matthew Garrett <mgar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
> > Henning Makholm <hen...@makholm.net> wrote:
>
> >>> 7. LICENSEE AGREES THAT THE EXPORT OF GOODS AND/OR TECHNICAL DATA FROM THE
> >>> UNITED STATES MAY REQUIRE SOME FORM OF EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE FROM THE
> >>> U.S. GOVERNMENT AND THAT FAILURE TO OBTAIN SUCH EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE
> >>> MAY RESULT IN CRIMINAL LIABILITY UNDER U.S. LAWS.
>
> >> Does this mean that the license is only avaliable to those who agree
> >> with the law? That would not be free.
>
> > No, it means that the licensee is obliged to agree that a fact may be
> > true.
>
> And if that fact is not agreeable to me, I may not copy the software?
'Agreeable' is not precisely a derivative of 'agree'. I agree that if
I drink alot of beer, I may very well be hung over the next morning.
it does not mean I am in the least agreeable about the situation.
What the statement reduces to is:
"licensee acknowledges that there are laws in some jursidictions,
and if you are in those jurisdictions and break those laws, there may
be consequences"
Well, no shit. That's a simple statement of fact, and not a
restriction.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| ,''`. Stephen Gran |
| : :' : sg...@debian.org |
| `. `' Debian user, admin, and developer |
| `- http://www.debian.org |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Henning Makholm
> Henning Makholm <hen...@makholm.net> wrote:
>> And if that fact is not agreeable to me, I may not copy the software?
> If you're unwilling to agree to truth statements, then yes, I'm entirely
> happy with you not being permitted to copy the software. It strongly
> implies that you're not competent to agree to any sort of license
> statement.
Freedom of software should also apply to people who don't agree with
US export laws.
--
Henning Makholm "I can get fat! I can sing!"
Henning Makholm
> What the statement reduces to is:
> "licensee acknowledges that there are laws in some jursidictions,
> and if you are in those jurisdictions and break those laws, there may
> be consequences"
>
> Well, no shit. That's a simple statement of fact, and not a
> restriction.
Why does the license say that it requires me to agree with something
if that is not what it means?
--
Henning Makholm "It will be useful even at this
early stage to review briefly the main
features of the universe as they are known today."
MJ Ray
> The BCFG public license (below) seems pretty much like a standard BSD
> + advertising clause license. I can't quite seem to remember what the
> current policy on that sort of license is.
Accepted but unpopular.
> Plus, it's got some other wording -- is it OK?
I'm not sure.
> Do any of you have any tips on what I might say
> to the author regarding dropping the advertising clause?
I'd look on www.fsf.org for their arguments against the BSD+ad.
[...]
> 4. All advertising materials, journal articles and documentation mentioning
> features derived from or use of the Software must display the following
> acknowledgment:
This is more than just the documentation and advertising of the Software.
It includes journal articles which mearly mention use of it - is that
contaminating unrelated software?
I agree with questioning needing to agree stuff about US laws.
I'm curious what rights are reserved by the US Government - this
licence looks like it's not complete without knowing that.
Hope that helps,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
Matthew Garrett
> Scripsit Matthew Garrett <mgar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
>> happy with you not being permitted to copy the software. It strongly
>> implies that you're not competent to agree to any sort of license
>> statement.
>
> Freedom of software should also apply to people who don't agree with
> US export laws.
I think you're misunderstanding. You're not asked to agree with the law,
merely its existence.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.ma...@srcf.ucam.org
Stephen Gran
>
> > What the statement reduces to is:
> > "licensee acknowledges that there are laws in some jursidictions,
> > and if you are in those jurisdictions and break those laws, there may
> > be consequences"
> >
> > Well, no shit. That's a simple statement of fact, and not a
> > restriction.
>
> Why does the license say that it requires me to agree with something
> if that is not what it means?
It doesn't; you're misunderstanding their use of the word agree.
`dict agree` might be helpful here - there are quite a lot of possible
meanings. The license is merely asking you to acknowledge that there
may be issues around export controls in one country.
Agreeing to a 'may' clause is in any event a non-issue. It's not like
the license says you must follow the rules around those export controls.
Stephen Gran
> John Goerzen <jgoe...@complete.org> asked:
> > The BCFG public license (below) seems pretty much like a standard BSD
> > + advertising clause license. I can't quite seem to remember what the
> > current policy on that sort of license is.
>
> Accepted but unpopular.
This is untrue.. The DFSG endorses it without reservation. It would
be best when reviewing a license for it's inclusion in Debian to follow
the DFSG.
> I agree with questioning needing to agree stuff about US laws.
I think this is already adequately explained elsewhere.
> I'm curious what rights are reserved by the US Government - this
> licence looks like it's not complete without knowing that.
I don't see any rights reserved by the US government in that license.
I see an explicit grant of rights to the US government and the standard
no warranty clause extended to the US government, but that's it.
Neither of these are freeness issues.
Ken Arromdee
> I think you're misunderstanding. You're not asked to agree with the law,
> merely its existence.
Imagine a hypothetical where five years from now someone believes that the
law is unconstitutional and is embroiled in a lawsuit about it against the
government. This person does not, in fact, agree that the law restricts
people in any way (since an unconstitutional law is not valid). However,
the software license demands that he agree that he is restricted by law, so
he is barred from using the software.
Stephen Gran
> On Sat, 29 Jul 2006, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > I think you're misunderstanding. You're not asked to agree with the law,
> > merely its existence.
>
> Imagine a hypothetical where five years from now someone believes that the
> law is unconstitutional and is embroiled in a lawsuit about it against the
> government. This person does not, in fact, agree that the law restricts
> people in any way (since an unconstitutional law is not valid). However,
> the software license demands that he agree that he is restricted by law, so
> he is barred from using the software.
I don't think you've read what you're replying to. If your hypothetical
person is working to overturn a law, then there is an a priori
acknowledgement that the law exists, correct?
Michael Poole
> On Sat, 29 Jul 2006, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > I think you're misunderstanding. You're not asked to agree with the law,
> > merely its existence.
>
> Imagine a hypothetical where five years from now someone believes that the
> law is unconstitutional and is embroiled in a lawsuit about it against the
> government. This person does not, in fact, agree that the law restricts
> people in any way (since an unconstitutional law is not valid). However,
> the software license demands that he agree that he is restricted by law, so
> he is barred from using the software.
The license demands that a licensor agree that the US government might
criminally prosecute him for prohibited exports from the United States
(the license says "OF GOODS AND/OR TECHNICAL DATA"). Good luck
arguing against that broad statement; there are plenty of cases where
goods -- such as military surplus missile launchers -- are export
controlled with no viable constitutional question and some, probably
smaller, number of cases where technical data are validly export
controlled.
Michael Poole
Ken Arromdee
> The license demands that a licensor agree that the US government might
> criminally prosecute him for prohibited exports from the United States
> (the license says "OF GOODS AND/OR TECHNICAL DATA"). Good luck
> arguing against that broad statement; there are plenty of cases where
> goods -- such as military surplus missile launchers -- are export
> controlled with no viable constitutional question and some, probably
> smaller, number of cases where technical data are validly export
> controlled.
So you're saying that the clause would be satisfied if the user agrees that
goods other than the program are subject to export law, even if he believes
the program itself isn't?
I suppose that's a valid way to read it, but it does seem strange.
Henning Makholm
> This one time, at band camp, Henning Makholm said:
>> Why does the license say that it requires me to agree with something
>> if that is not what it means?
> It doesn't; you're misunderstanding their use of the word agree.
> `dict agree` might be helpful here - there are quite a lot of possible
> meanings. The license is merely asking you to acknowledge that there
> may be issues around export controls in one country.
You seem to be saying that I can "agree" with the law even though I
completely disagree with it, and that "agreeing" in the license's
strange use means nothing at all. Why do you think that the license
wants me to do something that according to you does not entail doing
anything after all? That does not make sense; the licensor would not
have written the clause unless he intended it to restrict what I can
do.
--
Henning Makholm "Jeg køber intet af Sulla, og selv om uordenen griber
planmæssigt om sig, så er vi endnu ikke nået dertil hvor
ordentlige mennesker kan tillade sig at stjæle slaver fra
hinanden. Så er det ligegyldigt, hvor stærke, politiske modstandere vi er."
Matthew Garrett
> You seem to be saying that I can "agree" with the law even though I
> completely disagree with it
Please quote the section of the license that states that.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.ma...@srcf.ucam.org
Henning Makholm
> Henning Makholm <hen...@makholm.net> wrote:
>> You seem to be saying that I can "agree" with the law even though I
>> completely disagree with it
> Please quote the section of the license that states that.
# LICENSEE AGREES THAT THE EXPORT OF GOODS AND/OR TECHNICAL DATA FROM
# THE UNITED STATES MAY REQUIRE SOME FORM OF EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE FROM
# THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AND THAT FAILURE TO OBTAIN SUCH EXPORT CONTROL
# LICENSE MAY RESULT IN CRIMINAL LIABILITY UNDER U.S. LAWS.
--
Henning Makholm "Den nyttige hjemmedatamat er og forbliver en myte.
Generelt kan der ikke peges på databehandlingsopgaver af
en sådan størrelsesorden og af en karaktér, som berettiger
forestillingerne om den nye hjemme- og husholdningsteknologi."
Stephen Gran
> Scripsit Stephen Gran <sg...@debian.org>
> > This one time, at band camp, Henning Makholm said:
>
> >> Why does the license say that it requires me to agree with something
> >> if that is not what it means?
>
> > It doesn't; you're misunderstanding their use of the word agree.
> > `dict agree` might be helpful here - there are quite a lot of possible
> > meanings. The license is merely asking you to acknowledge that there
> > may be issues around export controls in one country.
>
> You seem to be saying that I can "agree" with the law even though I
> completely disagree with it, and that "agreeing" in the license's
> strange use means nothing at all. Why do you think that the license
> wants me to do something that according to you does not entail doing
> anything after all? That does not make sense; the licensor would not
> have written the clause unless he intended it to restrict what I can
> do.
Lets refer back to the license for a little clarity, perhaps:
7. LICENSEE AGREES THAT THE EXPORT OF GOODS AND/OR TECHNICAL DATA FROM THE
UNITED STATES MAY REQUIRE SOME FORM OF EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE FROM THE
U.S. GOVERNMENT AND THAT FAILURE TO OBTAIN SUCH EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE
MAY RESULT IN CRIMINAL LIABILITY UNDER U.S. LAWS.
Can you tell me which part of this clause you think asks you to agree
with the law? Can you tell me which part of this clause you think is
stronger than a 'may' statement?
I am at a loss here, frankly. I think mjg59 and myself have done a
reasonably good job explaining a sentence in our native tongue, but I
see that we are still failing to communicate. If you don't see what
we're saying now, can you be more explicit about what phraseology you
are seeing that supports your interpretation? It would be helpful in
trying to explain it.
George Danchev
--cut--
> Lets refer back to the license for a little clarity, perhaps:
>
> 7. LICENSEE AGREES THAT THE EXPORT OF GOODS AND/OR TECHNICAL DATA FROM THE
> UNITED STATES MAY REQUIRE SOME FORM OF EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE FROM THE
> U.S. GOVERNMENT AND THAT FAILURE TO OBTAIN SUCH EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE
> MAY RESULT IN CRIMINAL LIABILITY UNDER U.S. LAWS.
>
> Can you tell me which part of this clause you think asks you to agree
> with the law? Can you tell me which part of this clause you think is
> stronger than a 'may' statement?
>
> I am at a loss here, frankly. I think mjg59 and myself have done a
> reasonably good job explaining a sentence in our native tongue, but I
> see that we are still failing to communicate. If you don't see what
> we're saying now, can you be more explicit about what phraseology you
> are seeing that supports your interpretation? It would be helpful in
> trying to explain it.
Ok, the above `MAY REQUIRE' implies a possibility of eventual requirement to
bla bla bla ... What happens when that possibility becomes true and one does
not agree with that law and has never accepted it before.
--
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>
fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB
Matthew Garrett
> Scripsit Matthew Garrett <mgar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
>
> # LICENSEE AGREES THAT THE EXPORT OF GOODS AND/OR TECHNICAL DATA FROM
> # THE UNITED STATES MAY REQUIRE SOME FORM OF EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE FROM
> # THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AND THAT FAILURE TO OBTAIN SUCH EXPORT CONTROL
> # LICENSE MAY RESULT IN CRIMINAL LIABILITY UNDER U.S. LAWS.
In this sense, "AGREES" is synonymous with "ACKNOWLEDGES". If you read
it like that, are you happier?
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.ma...@srcf.ucam.org
Benjamin Seidenberg
> On Sunday 30 July 2006 00:01, Stephen Gran wrote:
> --cut--
>
>> Lets refer back to the license for a little clarity, perhaps:
>>
>> 7. LICENSEE AGREES THAT THE EXPORT OF GOODS AND/OR TECHNICAL DATA FROM THE
>> UNITED STATES MAY REQUIRE SOME FORM OF EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE FROM THE
>> U.S. GOVERNMENT AND THAT FAILURE TO OBTAIN SUCH EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE
>> MAY RESULT IN CRIMINAL LIABILITY UNDER U.S. LAWS.
>>
>> Can you tell me which part of this clause you think asks you to agree
>> with the law? Can you tell me which part of this clause you think is
>> stronger than a 'may' statement?
>>
>> I am at a loss here, frankly. I think mjg59 and myself have done a
>> reasonably good job explaining a sentence in our native tongue, but I
>> see that we are still failing to communicate. If you don't see what
>> we're saying now, can you be more explicit about what phraseology you
>> are seeing that supports your interpretation? It would be helpful in
>> trying to explain it.
>>
>
> Ok, the above `MAY REQUIRE' implies a possibility of eventual requirement to
> bla bla bla ... What happens when that possibility becomes true and one does
> not agree with that law and has never accepted it before.
>
>
license, you don't have to agree that the law is right or just ("agree
with it"), merely that it exists, as a statement of fact ("Agree that
the the facts stated are true"). The facts that are stated are that the
law declares x, y, and z.
Stephen Gran
> On Sunday 30 July 2006 00:01, Stephen Gran wrote:
> --cut--
> > Lets refer back to the license for a little clarity, perhaps:
> >
> > 7. LICENSEE AGREES THAT THE EXPORT OF GOODS AND/OR TECHNICAL DATA FROM THE
> > UNITED STATES MAY REQUIRE SOME FORM OF EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE FROM THE
> > U.S. GOVERNMENT AND THAT FAILURE TO OBTAIN SUCH EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE
> > MAY RESULT IN CRIMINAL LIABILITY UNDER U.S. LAWS.
> >
> > Can you tell me which part of this clause you think asks you to agree
> > with the law? Can you tell me which part of this clause you think is
> > stronger than a 'may' statement?
> >
> > I am at a loss here, frankly. I think mjg59 and myself have done a
> > reasonably good job explaining a sentence in our native tongue, but I
> > see that we are still failing to communicate. If you don't see what
> > we're saying now, can you be more explicit about what phraseology you
> > are seeing that supports your interpretation? It would be helpful in
> > trying to explain it.
>
> Ok, the above `MAY REQUIRE' implies a possibility of eventual requirement to
> bla bla bla ... What happens when that possibility becomes true and one does
> not agree with that law and has never accepted it before.
Ah, I think I see the source of the confusion.
The authors of the license are not asking you to agree with the idea of
export licensing. They are asking you to agree to the following
statement:
As things currently stand in the us, there are some things subject to
export licensing. If you export $thing, you can either first get a
license, or you may get in trouble with the government.
The 'require' comes from the US governement, not the authors of the
license. I think we can both agree that the author's assessment matches
current reality, so it doesn't seem worth debating that.
Finally, failure to get the license may (only may, not will, must, or
even 'really should') get you in trouble under US laws, and in no way
affects your status as licensee.
Does that clear things up?
Henning Makholm
> Henning Makholm <hen...@makholm.net> wrote:
>> Scripsit Matthew Garrett <mgar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
>>> Please quote the section of the license that states that.
>> # LICENSEE AGREES THAT THE EXPORT OF GOODS AND/OR TECHNICAL DATA FROM
>> # THE UNITED STATES MAY REQUIRE SOME FORM OF EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE FROM
>> # THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AND THAT FAILURE TO OBTAIN SUCH EXPORT CONTROL
>> # LICENSE MAY RESULT IN CRIMINAL LIABILITY UNDER U.S. LAWS.
> In this sense, "AGREES" is synonymous with "ACKNOWLEDGES". If you read
> it like that, are you happier?
What does it even mean then? Which legal consequences does it have for
me to "acknowledge" that law? Why would the licensor want me to do so
- he must have _some_ purpose in requiring such an "acknowledgement",
which indicates that a laywerbomb must be present somewhere. I would
be wary of using the software, because it is completely opaque what
the catch is.
At least I know what opinions I have. If "Licensee agrees" does not
mean that I in fact agree, then I don't know how to tell whether I
have "acknowledged" the law in a proper manner that allows me to use
the license, or what it would mean for me to do so.
--
Henning Makholm "Detta, sade de, vore rena sanningen;
ty de kunde tala sanning lika väl som någon
annan, när de bara visste vad det tjänade til."
Walter Landry
> This one time, at band camp, MJ Ray said:
> > John Goerzen <jgoe...@complete.org> asked:
> > > The BCFG public license (below) seems pretty much like a standard BSD
> > > + advertising clause license. I can't quite seem to remember what the
> > > current policy on that sort of license is.
> >
> > Accepted but unpopular.
>
> This is untrue.. The DFSG endorses it without reservation.
It is true that the DFSG endorses it without reservation. The DFSG
was written in 1997 and specifically mentions the BSD license, while
the advertising clause was not removed until 1999.
However, it is still unpopular for many good reasons.
Cheers,
Walter Landry
wla...@ucsd.edu
Benjamin Seidenberg
> Scripsit Matthew Garrett <mgar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
>
>> Henning Makholm <hen...@makholm.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Scripsit Matthew Garrett <mgar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
>>>
>
>
>>>> Please quote the section of the license that states that.
>>>>
>
>
>>> # LICENSEE AGREES THAT THE EXPORT OF GOODS AND/OR TECHNICAL DATA FROM
>>> # THE UNITED STATES MAY REQUIRE SOME FORM OF EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE FROM
>>> # THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AND THAT FAILURE TO OBTAIN SUCH EXPORT CONTROL
>>> # LICENSE MAY RESULT IN CRIMINAL LIABILITY UNDER U.S. LAWS.
>>>
>
>
>> In this sense, "AGREES" is synonymous with "ACKNOWLEDGES". If you read
>> it like that, are you happier?
>>
>
> What does it even mean then? Which legal consequences does it have for
> me to "acknowledge" that law? Why would the licensor want me to do so
> - he must have _some_ purpose in requiring such an "acknowledgement",
> which indicates that a laywerbomb must be present somewhere. I would
> be wary of using the software, because it is completely opaque what
> the catch is.
>
distributes their software in a way that violates US export laws they
can point at that license and say "See! We warned them! It's not our
fault" They don't want to get sued by someone claiming that it's their
responsibility for not informing that person of the legal risk.
> At least I know what opinions I have. If "Licensee agrees" does not
> mean that I in fact agree, then I don't know how to tell whether I
> have "acknowledged" the law in a proper manner that allows me to use
> the license, or what it would mean for me to do so.
>
>
system? You may not like the fact (I know I don't), and you may not
agree that they should be there, but I hope you can agree that they exist.
HTH,
Benjamin
George Danchev
Yes, thanks for the nice explanation. I remember we have discussed that in the
past [1], but we ended up to [2].
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/06/msg00075.html
[2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/06/msg00105.html
Now, let's see if I understand and interpret that correctly: Licensee even
might be kept liable under the above law despite his not accepting the same
law (some jurisdiction respect others jurisdiction laws, by means of various
bilateral agreements, and other complicated and boring documents, we are
hardly aware of).
So, the clause 7. of the BCFG license is only meant to warn the licensees to
obey the laws (I believe that they could be kept liable even without that
clause being added to the BCFG), and covers licensor's ass (as said in
another mail). If so, there is nothing we can do, no matter what law we
accept/agree with or we do not. Hm, then I tend to agree that it is hardly
non-free.
Stephen Gran
> Stephen Gran <sg...@debian.org> wrote:
> > This one time, at band camp, MJ Ray said:
> > > John Goerzen <jgoe...@complete.org> asked:
> > > > The BCFG public license (below) seems pretty much like a standard BSD
> > > > + advertising clause license. I can't quite seem to remember what the
> > > > current policy on that sort of license is.
> > >
> > > Accepted but unpopular.
> >
> > This is untrue.. The DFSG endorses it without reservation.
>
> It is true that the DFSG endorses it without reservation. The DFSG
> was written in 1997 and specifically mentions the BSD license, while
> the advertising clause was not removed until 1999.
>
> However, it is still unpopular for many good reasons.
I understand that many people are unhappy with the advertising clause.
I just think that when a list is asked a question in it's capacity as
arbiters of licenses for Debian, it is unhelpful to the OP to respond
with an answer based on personal feelings that conflict with what is so
clearly laid out in the DFSG.
Walter Landry
> This one time, at band camp, Walter Landry said:
> > Stephen Gran <sg...@debian.org> wrote:
> > > This one time, at band camp, MJ Ray said:
> > > > John Goerzen <jgoe...@complete.org> asked:
> > > > > The BCFG public license (below) seems pretty much like a standard BSD
> > > > > + advertising clause license. I can't quite seem to remember what the
> > > > > current policy on that sort of license is.
> > > >
> > > > Accepted but unpopular.
> > >
> > > This is untrue.. The DFSG endorses it without reservation.
> >
> > It is true that the DFSG endorses it without reservation. The DFSG
> > was written in 1997 and specifically mentions the BSD license, while
> > the advertising clause was not removed until 1999.
> >
> > However, it is still unpopular for many good reasons.
>
> I understand that many people are unhappy with the advertising clause.
> I just think that when a list is asked a question in it's capacity as
> arbiters of licenses for Debian, it is unhelpful to the OP to respond
> with an answer based on personal feelings that conflict with what is so
> clearly laid out in the DFSG.
Debian-legal often gives advice beyond what is required. For example,
the DFSG says nothing about license proliferation. Would you have
debian-legal refrain from telling people to use standard licenses?
It is not like the original response ("Accepted but unpopular") was
incorrect. It is accepted, but it is also unpopular.
Stephen Gran
> Hi,
>
> The BCFG public license (below) seems pretty much like a standard BSD
> + advertising clause license. I can't quite seem to remember what the
> current policy on that sort of license is.
This one time, at band camp, Walter Landry said:
> Stephen Gran <sg...@debian.org> wrote:
> > This one time, at band camp, Walter Landry said:
> >
> > I just think that when a list is asked a question in it's capacity as
> > arbiters of licenses for Debian, it is unhelpful to the OP to respond
> > with an answer based on personal feelings that conflict with what is so
> > clearly laid out in the DFSG.
>
> Debian-legal often gives advice beyond what is required. For example,
> the DFSG says nothing about license proliferation. Would you have
> debian-legal refrain from telling people to use standard licenses?
>
> It is not like the original response ("Accepted but unpopular") was
> incorrect. It is accepted, but it is also unpopular.
Since the original question was (quoted above) about what the current
policy is, it is disingenuous at best to pretend that it is anything but
whole heartedly supported. If you have personal issues with the
license, feel free to express them as an individual, just don't try to
misrepresent those opinions as the opinions of Debian.
steve@gashuffer:~$ grep -i landry /var/lib/apt/lists/*
steve@gashuffer:~$
Maybe the problem here is that you haven't agreed to follow the DFSG?
The post I was responding to was from someone who has, and was abusing
their position as a representative of Debian in an official capacity as
arbiter of acceptable licenses for Debian. If you, as a private netizen,
have problems with the 4 clause BSD license, that's fine. Just please
represent your opinions as your opinions.
Michael Poole
> Maybe the problem here is that you haven't agreed to follow the DFSG?
Could you please point out where the SC or DFSG forbid any kind of
(statement of) disagreement with their policies? Such a clause is
certainly not in keeping with the rest of the DFSG or with the general
cause of free software.
Michael Poole
MJ Ray
> This one time, at band camp, MJ Ray said:
> > Accepted but unpopular.
>
> This is untrue.. The DFSG endorses it without reservation. It would
> be best when reviewing a license for it's inclusion in Debian to follow
> the DFSG.
I am following the DFSG and I feel it is best to point out when
something is close to the edge, or is something accepted but
many dislike.
> > I agree with questioning needing to agree stuff about US laws.
>
> I think this is already adequately explained elsewhere.
Then why continue the discussion of it here?
> > I'm curious what rights are reserved by the US Government - this
> > licence looks like it's not complete without knowing that.
>
> I don't see any rights reserved by the US government in that license.
Exactly. They are referenced in section 2, but not identified. If
there are no such rights, why are they mentioned?
> I see an explicit grant of rights to the US government and the standard
> no warranty clause extended to the US government, but that's it.
> Neither of these are freeness issues.
Section 2 does not say that all rights of the USG are in this licence.
I don't know whether it's a freeness issue or not, as it's incomplete.
MJ Ray
> The post I was responding to was from someone who has, and was abusing
> their position as a representative of Debian in an official capacity as
> arbiter of acceptable licenses for Debian.
Huh? Please go learn who are the official arbiters of BCFG licence
acceptance (it isn't me) before screaming 'abuse of power! abuse of power!'
> If you, as a private netizen,
> have problems with the 4 clause BSD license, that's fine. Just please
> represent your opinions as your opinions.
Which I did. I post from a personal non-debian address, with a footer that
states very clearly this is only my opinion and links to a statement that
makes it quite clear I am NOT a representative of Debian in this situation.
The page with that statement also links through to fuller descriptions.
Please try to read posts before making silly accusations about them.
This does nothing to build faith in the odd intepretation of my native
language in the 'agree' subthread, as it suggests an inability to read.
Regards,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
Henning Makholm
> Henning Makholm wrote:
>> What does it even mean then? Which legal consequences does it have for
>> me to "acknowledge" that law? Why would the licensor want me to do so
>> - he must have _some_ purpose in requiring such an "acknowledgement",
>> which indicates that a laywerbomb must be present somewhere. I would
>> be wary of using the software, because it is completely opaque what
>> the catch is.
> It's to cover UChicago's ass. They want to make sure if someone
> distributes their software in a way that violates US export laws they
> can point at that license and say "See! We warned them! It's not our
> fault"
Thay would be able to cover their asses just fine by simply informing
the licensee that those laws exist. Lots of fine licenses do that.
However, this clause does not simply inform about a fact. It requires
the _licensee_ to do something, namely to "agree". Some people in this
threa claim that the action being required is not that of holding the
same opinion as that of the export law, but one of "acknowledging"
it. I don't even _know_ how to perform that action to the satisfaction
of the court. If I am to communicate acknowledgement to the licensor,
the software becomes postcardware and therefore non-free.
What I am saying is that if the author sues me with a claim that my
copying was unautorized becaus I have not performed the act of
"agreeing that bla bla bla" that was a condition of getting the
license, how would I go about convincing the court that he is wrong
and I did in fact do what the licensor wanted me to. (Assume here that
I _know_ what it is that the licensor wanted me to, which I don't).
>> At least I know what opinions I have. If "Licensee agrees" does not
>> mean that I in fact agree, then I don't know how to tell whether I
>> have "acknowledged" the law in a proper manner that allows me to use
>> the license, or what it would mean for me to do so.
> Would you agree that there are bugs present in the Debian operating
> system? You may not like the fact (I know I don't), and you may not
> agree that they should be there, but I hope you can agree that they exist.
It is true that there are bugs in Debian. That does not mean that a
free license can require me to tell the licensor that.
--
Henning Makholm "Unmetered water, dear. Run it deep."
Benjamin Seidenberg
> Scripsit Benjamin Seidenberg <astr...@dlgeek.net>
>
>> Henning Makholm wrote:
>>
>
>
>>> What does it even mean then? Which legal consequences does it have for
>>> me to "acknowledge" that law? Why would the licensor want me to do so
>>> - he must have _some_ purpose in requiring such an "acknowledgement",
>>> which indicates that a laywerbomb must be present somewhere. I would
>>> be wary of using the software, because it is completely opaque what
>>> the catch is.
>>>
>
>
>> It's to cover UChicago's ass. They want to make sure if someone
>> distributes their software in a way that violates US export laws they
>> can point at that license and say "See! We warned them! It's not our
>> fault"
>>
>
> Thay would be able to cover their asses just fine by simply informing
> the licensee that those laws exist. Lots of fine licenses do that.
>
> However, this clause does not simply inform about a fact. It requires
> the _licensee_ to do something, namely to "agree". Some people in this
> threa claim that the action being required is not that of holding the
> same opinion as that of the export law, but one of "acknowledging"
> it. I don't even _know_ how to perform that action to the satisfaction
> of the court. If I am to communicate acknowledgement to the licensor,
> the software becomes postcardware and therefore non-free.
>
is contingent on acceptance of the terms of the license, thus by
exercising those rights, your are demonstrating your acknowledgment.
Think of the GPL. By distributing software under the GPL, you are
acknowledging the terms of the GPL (SCO excluded) and you are then bound
by them. This license just explicitly requires you to acknowledge a fact
of US law, which you do by the act of distribution/modification.
> What I am saying is that if the author sues me with a claim that my
> copying was unautorized becaus I have not performed the act of
> "agreeing that bla bla bla" that was a condition of getting the
> license, how would I go about convincing the court that he is wrong
> and I did in fact do what the licensor wanted me to. (Assume here that
> I _know_ what it is that the licensor wanted me to, which I don't).
>
>
>>> At least I know what opinions I have. If "Licensee agrees" does not
>>> mean that I in fact agree, then I don't know how to tell whether I
>>> have "acknowledged" the law in a proper manner that allows me to use
>>> the license, or what it would mean for me to do so.
>>>
>
>
>> Would you agree that there are bugs present in the Debian operating
>> system? You may not like the fact (I know I don't), and you may not
>> agree that they should be there, but I hope you can agree that they exist.
>>
>
> It is true that there are bugs in Debian. That does not mean that a
> free license can require me to tell the licensor that.
>
>
This was an example of the difference between the two types of 'agree',
not saying a license should say that.
Benjamin