--On Tuesday, October 03, 2006 7:23 PM +0000 kurt@OpenLDAP.org wrote:
Update of /repo/OpenLDAP/pkg/ldap/servers/slapd/schema
Modified Files: core.schema 1.88 -> 1.89
Log Message: Incorporate a bit of text from RFC 4524, just to make a point regarding ITS#4693.
The general problem is that things that are copyrightable are not generally distributable in free distributions (i.e., debian), which means that they then cannot distribute core.schema with the OpenLDAP distribution if you make the copyright statement applicable. They already strip out the RFC's since they also are non-free.
--Quanah
-- Quanah Gibson-Mount Principal Software Developer ITS/Shared Application Services Stanford University GnuPG Public Key: http://www.stanford.edu/~quanah/pgp.html
Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
--On Tuesday, October 03, 2006 7:23 PM +0000 kurt@OpenLDAP.org wrote:
Update of /repo/OpenLDAP/pkg/ldap/servers/slapd/schema
Modified Files: core.schema 1.88 -> 1.89
Log Message: Incorporate a bit of text from RFC 4524, just to make a point regarding ITS#4693.
The general problem is that things that are copyrightable are not generally distributable in free distributions (i.e., debian), which means that they then cannot distribute core.schema with the OpenLDAP distribution if you make the copyright statement applicable. They already strip out the RFC's since they also are non-free.
I fail to see how any of this is the OpenLDAP Project's concern. The Project provides a source code distribution, not runnable packages. Whoever creates the runnable packages deals with packaging issues however they see fit.
As a philosophical point - in the United States, every written work is automatically covered by copyright at the moment of creation. You'll note that practically every file in the OpenLDAP source tree is covered by one or more copyrights. To assert that things that are copywritten cannot be distributed freely is a rather peculiar viewpoint; things can be distributed according to the License granted by the copyright holder. Where upstream copyrights apply, the Project really doesn't have any choice in the matter.
Not an official Project position of course, just providing my personal perspective.
--On Tuesday, October 03, 2006 3:54 PM -0700 Howard Chu hyc@symas.com wrote:
Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
--On Tuesday, October 03, 2006 7:23 PM +0000 kurt@OpenLDAP.org wrote:
Update of /repo/OpenLDAP/pkg/ldap/servers/slapd/schema
Modified Files: core.schema 1.88 -> 1.89
Log Message: Incorporate a bit of text from RFC 4524, just to make a point regarding ITS#4693.
The general problem is that things that are copyrightable are not generally distributable in free distributions (i.e., debian), which means that they then cannot distribute core.schema with the OpenLDAP distribution if you make the copyright statement applicable. They already strip out the RFC's since they also are non-free.
I fail to see how any of this is the OpenLDAP Project's concern. The Project provides a source code distribution, not runnable packages. Whoever creates the runnable packages deals with packaging issues however they see fit.
As a philosophical point - in the United States, every written work is automatically covered by copyright at the moment of creation.
Debian sez:
This is factually false. Recipes cannot be copyrighted, nor can interface specifications, nor can telephone books, except to the degree that a compilation copyright applies.
You'll note that practically every file in the OpenLDAP source tree is covered by one or more copyrights. To assert that things that are copywritten cannot be distributed freely is a rather peculiar viewpoint;
I note:
The problem is the type of copywrite, not whether or not it is copywritten. (i.e., able to be modified (free) or not (non-free)).
things can be distributed according to the License granted by the
copyright holder.
Debian sez:
Yes, and the license in this case is non-free, so it's good that the material wasn't copyrightable in the first place.
--Quanah
-- Quanah Gibson-Mount Principal Software Developer ITS/Shared Application Services Stanford University GnuPG Public Key: http://www.stanford.edu/~quanah/pgp.html
Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
Debian sez:
This is factually false. Recipes cannot be copyrighted, nor can interface specifications, nor can telephone books, except to the degree that a compilation copyright applies.
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#102
Mere listings of ingredients cannot be copyrighted, but recipes which include literary expression in the form of an explanation or directions can be copyrighted.
I couldn't find anything that pertains to interface specifications in any of the text for the laws.
things can be distributed according to the License granted by the
copyright holder.
Debian sez:
Yes, and the license in this case is non-free, so it's good that the material wasn't copyrightable in the first place.
If there's an exception in the copyright law that supports this statement, it ought to be easy for the Debian folks to provide the reference.
Personally I think most of the copyright law is broken and needs to be overhauled, but that's a side issue. Notice in 102(b)
(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.
Computer programs are nothing but collections of procedures, and yet an exception seems to have been made somewhere (I don't know where) allowing them to be copywritten. Bitmap fonts apparently are excluded from protection, which is why Adobe invented Postscript Type1 fonts, which are actually collections of Postscript programs, in order to gain copyright protection for their fonts.
-
Howard Chu -
Quanah Gibson-Mount