Discussion May 2004

discussion@lists.fsfe.org

31 participants
14 discussions

Obtaining interface documentation without restrictions
by James Davis 10 Jun '04

10 Jun '04

I've recently bought myself a Nikon D70 digital camera which supports the PTP (ISO 15740) protocol for transferring images from the camera and controlling the hardware. Although basic functionality (transferring images for example) is available through tools such as libptp,gphoto2 and gtkam, the more advanced features are as yet, not supported in Free software. Essentially PTP allows the user to read, and set a number of properties on the camera. The properties are referenced by numerical values ( a subset of which are common to all devices) and not by a descriptive label. According to Nikon's customer support the documentation for this properties is available gratis in the SDK for the D70 and not available separately. The application form for the SDK requires the signing of an NDA which would prevent me from contributing any patches back to gphoto2/gtkam. The SDK contains, besides the documentation, binary libraries which I presume is essentially a PTP client customized for this camera. I'm not particularly concerned by a NDA covering the binaries as I have no absolutely no interest in looking at them or using them but I'd really like use the PTP interface fully in Free software. I could reverse engineer the PTP properties and it wouldn't be too difficult but I'd rather not have to. Has anyone on the list got any recommendations or experience with approaching hardware manufacturers with requests of this type? Regards, James

2 1

Collecting arguments for licence change
by Achim D. Brucker 06 Jun '04

06 Jun '04

Hi, I'm trying to convince a group of authors (I'm not one of those) to release their software with a free licence (preferable (L)GPL or at least a (L)GPL compatible one). The project is a (in its community) well known and highly respected piece of software which was initially distributed under a non-free licence, mainly: "Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its documentation for any non-commercial purpose and without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice appears in all copies and that both the copyright notice and this permission notice and warranty disclaimer appear in supporting documentation, and that the name of the University xxx not be used in advertising or publicity pertaining to distribution of the software without specific, written prior permission." Where in the real licence terms, "University xxx" stands for two European Universities. Today, the copyright situation is somewhat complicated. - the above copyright note seems to be still the intended "main" copyright note, as it is located in a file called "COPYRIGHT" within the top-level directory of the (source) distribution. - Within the source files there are at least three types of copyright headers: 1) // Author: Joe Developer // Copyright: 2003 University xxx 2) // Author: Jim Developer // Copyright: GPL (GNU General Public License) 3) // Author: Fred Developer // Copyright: Fred Developer Note that one can assume that all authors have written the code "from scratch" for this project, e.g. Jim Developer will argue for changing the licence but would not accuse the project of disrespecting his licence. At the moment I'm in the brain-storming phase, e.g. I'm collection any thoughts, ideas, arguments, problems which I can use to convince the copyright holder to change the licence. My rather unstructured and unpolished list is as follows: - IMHO the actual licence constellation is highly contradictory and therefore "default copyright" rules come into force, which means (as I understood it) that a user is not allowed to do anything with the software... - recently they launched a public project where they are collecting examples for their software. They strictly require that the authors of the examples must licence their work under the LGPL. This prohibits code exchange in both directions, using code from the project in the example and also using the submitted examples in the main distribution (I think, this could be a kind of "killer argument"). - releasing the project as free software opens the door to broader publicity, e.g. inclusion of the project into Debian GNU/Linux, which IMHO is a great chance for projects in a non-mainstream area. (After a licence change, I would volunteer to provide Debian packages) - I plan also an offer to produce a Gnoppix (www.gnoppix.org) setup which provides a bootable demo system which should also be a great gain to the project as system is quite complex to install (at least in some sense). As I have the suspicion that the important people cannot be conviced on the legal level (the contradiction problem of the actual constellation) I try mainly to argue with the benefits of releasing the software as free software. Do you have any hints, guidelines, and/or further arguments for me? Any ideas how to start the licence discussion in a friendly way. What are the modest licence changes needed to get a (L)GPL compatible one? Thanks, Achim

2 2

(Fwd) [Fsfe-ie] Irish proposal on software patents passed
by Niall Douglas 20 May '04

20 May '04

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Most unfortunate :( I guess we'll be having fun lobbying the MEP's again to vote no shortly. Cheers, Niall - ------- Forwarded message follows ------- Hi John, News just in is that the Irish proposal on software patents was passed, this is a dark day for innovation in the European Software industry, not to mention for democracy in the EU. This is an (apparently successful) attempt by the pro-patent lobby to torpedo the whole directive on software patents, since they are well aware that the European Parliament is extremely unlikely to vote for this version when it is returned to them (because it removes all of their amendments and safeguards). Their strategy seems to be that having effectively killed this directive, they will now pursue the introduction of software patents through less transparent means, doing everything they can to minimise democratic scrutiny of their actions. In short, a small cabal of unelected beaurocrats are seeking to rewrite European law to increase their own powers and appease their friends in industry. They are doing so against the express wishes of the EU's democratically elected representatives in the European Parliament. To achieve this goal they are using every trick in the book to minimise or evade democratic scrutiny and accountability. Kind regards, Ian. _______________________________________________ fsfe-ie(a)fsfeurope.org mailing list List information: http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/fsfe-ie Public archive: https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-ie - ------- End of forwarded message ------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: idw's PGP-Frontend 4.9.6.1 / 9-2003 + PGP 8.0.2 iQA/AwUBQKpiLcEcvDLFGKbPEQIJwACg/XzSUZQZKfPpHwHbUg4yghKFCF8AmwfH fYOu8UaxVKlgfbZ9K44XY9YC =YL0h -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

6 7

17 May '04

Hello! I joined the people working at the FSFE-Booth on this year's LinuxTag and have therefore a question: I would like to wear a t-shirt showing a large copyright sign that is crossed out. But I'm not sure if this contradicts the philosophy of the FSF. Any advice welcome, Kevin -- http://www.boergens.de Please point out English grammar and voc mistakes to me. I'm still a learner.

18 76

Re: MythTV / licensing / GPL / Patents
by Brian Gough 17 May '04

17 May '04

Pete Dijkman <pete_dijkman(a)yahoo.com> writes: > MythTV http://mythtv.org is an example of a great free software > project. Non-royalty free patents and the GPL just seem > uncompatible to me or am I missing something?? You're right, they are incompatible, but until the patent holder brings a case the vendor is not necessarily violating the GPL in itself. Releasing any product carries a risk of patent infringement (we're all probably infringing on some patent somewhere) so there is a judgement call involved. However, I wouldn't recommend using the MP3 codec in a commercial product using free sofware --- since there are good free alternatives available, such as Ogg Vorbis, it would be better to use those. -- Brian Gough Network Theory Ltd, Publishing Free Software Manuals --- http://www.network-theory.co.uk/

1 0

MythTV / licensing / GPL / Patents
by Pete Dijkman 16 May '04

16 May '04

Hi, MythTV http://mythtv.org is an example of a great free software project. It converts your GNU/Linux box into a wonderful personal video recorder. An australian company is using this software to sell a PVR based on that software. See http://www.d1.com.au/hmc/index.html According to: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/03/25/2222240&mode=thread&tid=129&tid… they seem to adhere to the GPL by also putting all the source on the device. I think there might be some problem though. MythTV and libraries like FFMPEG use all kind of patents. And non-royalty free patents and the GPL are pretty incompatible if you read the GPL: "7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program." So the people of D1 should get a patent license for all the patents they infringe, but to adhere to the GPL they need not only to get a patent license for their customers but also for all the people who obtain that code via redistribution. Since this can be a sheer amount of people, they basically have to get a patent license for an almost unlimited number of people. It's very unlikely that patent holders will license their patents in such a way. Unless you pay them a gazillion euros of course. Another thing somebody could do, is buy 1 box of D1 and then copy the software to sell his own boxes. If a patent holder then knocks on his door, he just says he got his code under the GPL from D1 and that they should go and bother D1 about patent licenses. Also something strange is the following text on the FFMPEG website http://ffmpeg.sourceforge.net/ "Commercial use of FFMPEG: Few people has asked about using FFMPEG usage in commercial (closed source) applications. While you can definately use FFMPEG for those purposes (don't forget to follow the LGPL license), you still need to contact the MPEG-LA or other patent holders in order to license the patents which covers the various codecs you want to use. Most of the Patent holders know about FFMPEG and they follow the development, and so far none of them sued or asked to remove any code, but that doesn't mean you don't need to pay them if you're using this code commercially." Non-royalty free patents and the GPL just seem uncompatible to me or am I missing something?? Any comments/thoughts?? Pete __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! - Internet access at a great low price. http://promo.yahoo.com/sbc/

1 0

IST2004 Conference
by Jan-Oliver Wagner 13 May '04

13 May '04

Hi, see attached information about IST conference. Proposals for topics are accepted for only a couple of days from now. Maybe FSFE likes to propose Free Software? ;-) Or releted topics. Unfortunatly I have no time at all and AFAIK, FSFE board has its gathering. Anyone else then? Best Jan -- Jan-Oliver Wagner http://intevation.de/~jan/ Intevation GmbH http://intevation.de/ FreeGIS http://freegis.org/

1 0

Re: Copyright T-Shirt
by Axel Schulz 12 May '04

12 May '04

Hej! Don't you think it is time to re-name the subject of this discussion? "Re: Copyright T-Shirt" sounds a little misleading ;-)) Besides, the discussion is very interesting. regards, Axel

1 0

Vous avez des droits... Les brevets de logiciel sont illégaux
by Christian Beauprez 09 May '04

09 May '04

Bonjour À tous, Veuillez pardonner cet envoi multiple, mais j'ai voulu vous envoyer tout un sommaire de ma recherche dans ce secteur pour votre référence dans un E-mail simple. Au moment où, les membres du Conseil de l'UE décident sur une question que des auteurs de logiciel d'effets non seulement, mais tout ceux qui sont concernés par la liberté d'idées. Si l'ébauche du Conseil est quelque chose moins qu'une demande de la réalisation d'un produit ou d'un processus physique afin de constituer une invention, alors les idées elles-mêmes seront reclassifiées comme "inventions" ; cela peut être possédé par une personne ou un corps constitué simple. Ceci a été fait sur la prétention incorrecte que les Traités exigent de nous de faire breveter le logiciel. Ce qui a commencé comme un secteur d'intérêt personnel est devenu une issue beaucoup plus large de la liberté de la parole elle-même, et en effet liberté de pensée pour cette issue n'est rien moins que cela. Qui peut posséder une idée par lui-même ? Les "restrictions sur le patentability" ; de l'interactions" "normal ; soyez complètement insatisfaisant, car ils ont été soulevés et du dépassement PTO pratiquent, qui déjà tient compte des réclamations de programme et ne fait rien à empêcher le brevetage des programmes machine quand ils sont chargés dans un ordinateur et une course. (la raison entière pour laquelle des programmes machine sont écrits en premier lieu). Après de nombreux articles d'écriture sur cette question j'ai conclu : 1) les programmes machine sont les travaux littéraires aux termes de chaque traité que nous avons connecté leur protection parce qu'ils sont l'information pure. Les travaux littéraires sont par des inventions de définition pas et les concepts dans elles ne sont unique propriété de person's. C'est la manière légitime correcte et seule de protéger le logiciel. 2) la protection comme travail littéraire prolonge "by tous les moyens et dans n'importe quel form" ; - y compris le traitement des lignes de "the de programme (intensivement documenté) pas simplement du code dans le form" écrit ; - pourtant plus de non-sens. 3) les auteurs de logiciel ont les mêmes droits que n'importe quel autre auteur de distribuer et profiter de leur travail sous n'importe quelle forme. Le brevetage pur de logiciel serait préjudiciel vers les droites des auteurs parce qu'il permettrait un "inventor" ; pour les réclamer possèdent les idées d'author's et bloquent ces droites. (infraction principale de A) 4) par conséquent les propositions pour prolonger le patentability dans informatique nous placent dans la violation exprès du Traité de copyright de WIPO, de la convention de Berne, du copyright de logiciel directif et du Traité de ADPIC lui-même. J'ai envoyé une copie de tout mon travail avec une lettre d'accompagnement au Conseil de l'Europe, aussi bien que des MPE, demandant qu'ils considèrent ces points instamment. La chose importante que nous devons nous rappeler est : Les auteurs sont les supports droits légitimes dans le logiciel. Personne ne demande un changement de la loi, seulement cela il soit confirmé. Si le Conseil décide d'aller en avant sans imposer des restrictions appropriées pour empêcher le brevetage de processus de données, elles ne peuvent pas les indiquer haven't averti des infractions très vraies qui se produiraient. Les documents principaux que j'ai écrits sur cette question. http://www.beauprez.net/softpat/presumption.html les origines du brevetage de logiciel : La Présomption Mortelle. Explique la paille fondamentale dans la logique que cela a menée au brevetage de logiciel. Explique en outre pourquoi en réalité les brevets et le copyright ne peuvent pas co-exister dans le même domaine. http://www.beauprez.net/softpat/summary.html pourquoi est le logiciel pur faisant breveter dans l'infraction des engagements internationaux ? Un bref sommaire. http://www.beauprez.net/softpat/ffii-talk140404.html la pleine adresse que j'ai donnée au FFII au Parlement sur le 14ème inclut les références d'apostille qui lien directement aux traités de sorte que les gens puissent décider pour eux-mêmes. Démontre en outre pourquoi les restrictions de Council's en forme courante won't fonctionnent. http://beauprez.net/softpat/compliance.html le diagramme de conformité montrant la conformité du Parlement et du Conseil documente plus largement avec des engagements internationaux. http://beauprez.net/softpat/legalfacts3.html : Faits légaux, fictions légales.... http://beauprez.net/softpat/dreamdirective.html I a écrit la directive de rêve pour démontrer simplement à quel point il simple est d'avoir une directive qui est compatible avec tous les traités sus-mentionnés, cela permettrait tous les nouveaux produits ou processus physiques tout en rejetant le patentability pur de logiciel. (en fait c'est la seule vraie manière de se conformer aux engagements internationaux) De nouveau merci à tout le vous pour vos idées, discussions et patience pensives. J'espère que nous pourrons faire assez de pression sur le Conseil de remettre cette issue de légal principal aussi bien que l'importance philosophique de nouveau à la démocratie parlementaire. Veuillez soulever ces questions avec vos représentants et n'importe qui autrement qui a peut-être intéressé. Les Plus sincères Amitiés, Christian

1 0

Invitation 3rd Oekonux Conference
by Stefan Meretz 09 May '04

09 May '04

Wealth by copyleft ================= Creativity in the digital age ============================= 3rd Oekonux Conference Invitation Project Oekonux [http://www.oekonux.org/] does research on the economical, political and social forms of Free Software. Similar to the development of Free Software, different people with different reasons and different approaches get together in this project to build something new. One question, a lot of people are interested in, is, whether and if so, how, the principles of the development of Free Software can serve as a basis for a new society. The 3rd Oekonux conference [http://www.oekonux-conference.org/] "Wealth by copyleft -- Creativity in the digital age" takes up the diversity of the project. Among other things it aims at learning something about how the example of Free Software is perceived and realized in other fields. Together with our co-organizers Bureau for Philosophy in Vienna we are proud to welcome more than 30 invited contributors which will share their experience, studies and insights with us on topics like o Free Software communities, hackers, and self-organization from various sociological, cultural historical, and philosophical perspectives o Organization and domination in Free Projects o Experiences from Free Software projects o Free Software and political movements o Various perspectives on Free Hardware, Indymedia, and Wikis o Free Software and Internet in the non-industrialized world o The role of compensation and exchange for Free Activities o "Intellectual property" and Free Publication in science o Fundamental changes in the contemporary world of work and production and their possible meaning Moreover the program of the conference contains the public presentation of the Austrian version of the CreativeCommons license as well as an art project. Please see the program page [http://www.oekonux-conference.org/program/] for detailed information. After the inspiration of the 1st [http://erste.oekonux-konferenz.de/] and 2nd [http://second.oekonux-conference.org/] Oekonux Conference we hope and expect that in an open atmosphere critical voices as much as the enthusiasm of the hackers once more will merge into a creative process. We hope and expect, that again the wide range of presentations contributed by German speaking and international participants will lead to new insights and broader understanding for all. We hope and expect, that as before we will have a lot of fun :-) . 3rd Oekonux Conference May 20th-23rd, 2004 Department of Philosophy at Vienna University Please register http://www.oekonux-conference.org/registration.html -- Vereinte Dienstleistungsgewerkschaft ver.di Internetredaktion, Projekt di.ver Potsdamer Platz 10, 10785 Berlin -- ver.di: http://www.verdi.de di.ver: http://verdi.org privat: http://www.meretz.de --

2 2

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

Discussion May 2004