Re: Licenses links broken

[Jens Seidel]

On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 01:13:18PM +0200, Pau Ruŀlan Ferragut wrote:
> Most of the links in http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ are broken, such as
> the FAQ itself. Please have a look at them.

Most?

OK, a few are indeed broken and I suggest to use the following URLs
instead. Since this is license stuff it would be nice if it could be
checked (just in case a license changed (such as X's one and the old
link referred to a older version than my new proposal, ...).

MIT/X11-style licenses: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License
Python Software Foundation License: http://www.python.org/download/releases/2.5.2/license/

W3C Software Notice and License: times out ...

http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq
returns a Forbidden. Can someone check whether this site still exists
(on the people.debian.org server)?
http://tango.isti.cnr.it/docs/dfsg-faq.html is a (newer or older?) draft of it.

There are also many non-free licenses mentioned without a link. Why?

Jens


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

[Paul Wise-3]

On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 10:42 PM, Jens Seidel <jensseidel@...> wrote:

> http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq
> returns a Forbidden. Can someone check whether this site still exists
> (on the people.debian.org server)?

pabs@gluck:~$ ls ~bap/public_html/ -l | grep dfsg
-rw------- 1 bap Debian 60742 2008-05-13 01:29 dfsg-faq.html

--
bye,
pabs

http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise


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

[Barak A. Pearlmutter]

> http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq
> returns a Forbidden. Can someone check whether this site still exists

Wups!  Sorry about that.  Fixed.

                                        --Barak.


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

[Francesco Poli-2]

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 16:42:16 +0200 Jens Seidel wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 01:13:18PM +0200, Pau Ruŀlan Ferragut wrote:
> > Most of the links in http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ are broken, such as
> > the FAQ itself. Please have a look at them.
>
> Most?
>
> OK, a few are indeed broken and I suggest to use the following URLs
> instead. Since this is license stuff it would be nice if it could be
> checked (just in case a license changed (such as X's one and the old
> link referred to a older version than my new proposal, ...).
>
> MIT/X11-style licenses: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License

Actually, the MIT_License wikipedia page currently includes the
Expat/MIT license, not the X11/MIT license.  I would suggest to use the
following link:

Expat/MIT license: http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt

The so-called X11/MIT license uses a slightly different wording and
also includes a clause forbidding unauthorized use of names in
advertising.
Unfortunately, I cannot find a currently valid URL for the X11/MIT
license.  The text is quoted in one of my old bug reports:
http://bugs.debian.org/284340
If anyone finds a valid URL for the X11/MIT, I would be very interested
to know...
Please note that http://www.xfree86.org/3.3.6/COPYRIGHT2.html#3
is close, but not equal to the license I used to know as the X11 license



--
 http://frx.netsons.org/doc/index.html#nanodocs
 The nano-document series is here!
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4

[Jens Seidel]

On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 11:04:17PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:

> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 16:42:16 +0200 Jens Seidel wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 01:13:18PM +0200, Pau Ruŀlan Ferragut wrote:
> > > Most of the links in http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ are broken, such as
> > > the FAQ itself. Please have a look at them.
> >
> > Most?
> >
> > OK, a few are indeed broken and I suggest to use the following URLs
> > instead. Since this is license stuff it would be nice if it could be
> > checked (just in case a license changed (such as X's one and the old
> > link referred to a older version than my new proposal, ...).
> >
> > MIT/X11-style licenses: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License
>
> Actually, the MIT_License wikipedia page currently includes the
> Expat/MIT license, not the X11/MIT license.  I would suggest to use the
> following link:
>
> Expat/MIT license: http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt

OK, did so. Linking to Wikipedia would ensure that the link is always up
to date and this page contains also further info. But Ok I changed it
as suggested by you (inclusive s,X11/MIT,Expat/MIT,).

> The so-called X11/MIT license uses a slightly different wording and
> also includes a clause forbidding unauthorized use of names in
> advertising.
> Unfortunately, I cannot find a currently valid URL for the X11/MIT
> license.  The text is quoted in one of my old bug reports:
> http://bugs.debian.org/284340
> If anyone finds a valid URL for the X11/MIT, I would be very interested
> to know...
> Please note that http://www.xfree86.org/3.3.6/COPYRIGHT2.html#3
> is close, but not equal to the license I used to know as the X11 license

The Python link is now fixed as well.

Thanks,
Jens


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

[MJ Ray-2]

Jens Seidel <jensseidel@...> wrote: [...]
> MIT/X11-style licenses: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License

I think it's a bad idea to link to Wikipedia because anyone can edit
it, but I see that expat has been used instead.  Good, thanks.

[...]
> There are also many non-free licenses mentioned without a link. Why?

It was enough of a pain in the bum to find accurate links for those
licences from the main distribution.  I didn't spend the extra time
supporting non-free because it shouldn't be encouraged.  Some of them
had multiple licences under the exact same name too, so which do we
link?  The latest?  The most restrictive?  One that corresponds to
some package on the non-free mirrors at the moment?

GNU LibGPL wasn't linked because it was moving around GNU's site at
the time IIRC and I didn't know a good URL for the vhfpl.

The "Work in Progress" section is very out of date.  Replace the
second and third paragraphs with a simple link to debian-legal's
archive, perhaps?

Hope that explains,
--
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:[phone]


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

[Laura Creighton-2]

In a message of Thu, 17 Jul 2008 23:04:17 +0200, Francesco Poli writes:
<snip>

>
>Actually, the MIT_License wikipedia page currently includes the
>Expat/MIT license, not the X11/MIT license.  I would suggest to use the
>following link:
>
>Expat/MIT license: http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt
>
>The so-called X11/MIT license uses a slightly different wording and
>also includes a clause forbidding unauthorized use of names in
>advertising.

According to wikipedia that is a FSF-modified version of the MIT
license from 1998, first used with ncurses.  So if you download that
maybe you will find the license you remember.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License

Laura Creighton

> http://frx.netsons.org/doc/index.html#nanodocs
> The nano-document series is here!
>..................................................... Francesco Poli .
> GnuPG key fpr =3D=3D C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4


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

[Francesco Poli-2]

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 10:30:09 +0200 Laura Creighton wrote:

> In a message of Thu, 17 Jul 2008 23:04:17 +0200, Francesco Poli writes:
> <snip>
> >
> >Actually, the MIT_License wikipedia page currently includes the
> >Expat/MIT license, not the X11/MIT license.  I would suggest to use the
> >following link:
> >
> >Expat/MIT license: http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt
> >
> >The so-called X11/MIT license uses a slightly different wording and
> >also includes a clause forbidding unauthorized use of names in
> >advertising.
>
> According to wikipedia that is a FSF-modified version of the MIT
> license from 1998, first used with ncurses.  So if you download that
> maybe you will find the license you remember.

Unfortunately, the license text I used to know as the X11 license[1] is
similar to the ncurses license[2], but differs in many details.

[1] see http://bugs.debian.org/284340
[2] http://invisible-island.net/ncurses/ncurses.faq.html#who_owns_it

Thanks anyway.



--
 http://frx.netsons.org/doc/index.html#nanodocs
 The nano-document series is here!
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4