3270: 5250 emulation code, all rights reserved

[Debian Bug Importer]

Automatically imported from Debian bug report #248853
http://bugs.debian.org/248853

[Cowboy (cowboy-debian)]

On Thu, 13 May 2004, Andrew Saunders wrote:

> Package: 3270
> Version: all
> Severity: serious
> Justification: Policy 2.3
>
> See the license terms here:
>
> http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/non-free/3/3270/3270_3.3.2p1-1/copyright
--------------------------------------------^^^^^^^^^---------------------------

> The copyright holder of the 5250 emulation code appears to have
> granted no permissions whatsoever; there is just the bare copyright
> declaration on its own. Since copyright law works on the basis that
> pretty much all rights are reserved (barring fair use etc) unless
> expressly stated otherwise, the 5250 emulation code and all code that
> could be considered to have been derived from it are most definitely
> not legally distributable by Debian.
>
> Similarly, the portions of code copyrighted by Georgia Tech Research
> Corporation are not distributable either, since the only right
> explicitly granted is that to "public use" (whatever that means).
>
> IMO, the 3270 packages should be removed from the archive immediately.

Sigh... did you not notice from which pool this came ?

I'm all for constructive criticism; something I can take to upstream -
and he has done some work to improve the situation based upon earlier
conversations. However, knee-jerk responces (like this) will be simply
routed to /dev/null.

If you wish to be helpful, I'll be happy to blast the copyright info
to debian-legal for further critique. If you wish to just blather,
consider this a *plonk*.
--
Rick Nelson
This is the solution to Debian's problem .. and since the only real way
to create more relatives of developers is to have children, we need more
sex! It's a long term investment ... it's the work itself that is
satisfying!
        -- Craig Brozefsky

[Andrew Saunders (syntaxis)]

On Thu, 13 May 2004 10:35:27 -0400 (EDT)
Richard A Nelson <email address hidden> wrote:

> On Thu, 13 May 2004, Andrew Saunders wrote:
>
> > Package: 3270
> > Version: all
> > Severity: serious
> > Justification: Policy 2.3
> >
> > See the license terms here:
> >
> > http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/non-free/3/3270/3270_3.3.2p1-1/copyright
> --------------------------------------------^^^^^^^^^--------------
> -------------
>
> > The copyright holder of the 5250 emulation code appears to have
> > granted no permissions whatsoever; there is just the bare
> > copyright declaration on its own. Since copyright law works on the
> > basis that pretty much all rights are reserved (barring fair use
> > etc) unless expressly stated otherwise, the 5250 emulation code
> > and all code that could be considered to have been derived from it
> > are most definitely not legally distributable by Debian.
> >
> > Similarly, the portions of code copyrighted by Georgia Tech
> > Research Corporation are not distributable either, since the only
> > right explicitly granted is that to "public use" (whatever that
> > means).
> >
> > IMO, the 3270 packages should be removed from the archive
> > immediately.
>
> Sigh... did you not notice from which pool this came ?

Even Non-Free packages must as a minimum be legally distributable by
the Project to qualify for inclusion in the archive. I'm surprised you
could be a DD and yet not know this.

> I'm all for constructive criticism; something I can take to upstream
> - and he has done some work to improve the situation based upon
> earlier conversations. However, knee-jerk responces (like this) will
> be simply routed to /dev/null.

If you disagree with my analysis of the situation, how about providing
a coherent rebuttal as opposed to just dismissing my concerns out of
hand?

> If you wish to be helpful, I'll be happy to blast the copyright info
> to debian-legal for further critique. If you wish to just blather,
> consider this a *plonk*.

Appropriate X-Debbugs-CC header added. Let's see what the -legal
eagles think.

--
Andrew Saunders

[Henning Makholm (henning-makholm)]

Scripsit Andrew Saunders <email address hidden>

> Appropriate X-Debbugs-CC header added. Let's see what the -legal
> eagles think.

The copyright file says

| The 5250 emulation code carries one more copyright:
|
| 5250 Emulation Code Copyright Minolta (Schweiz) AG, Beat
| Rubischon.
|
| What this means is that you (whomever you may be) may use x3270 3.1
| for whatever purpose you desire, and the only restriction is that
| you include the above notices in each copy or derivative work you
| distribute.

This is a direct quote from the file */html/Lineage.html in the
upstream source. The (non-dodumentation) files that mention "Beat
Rubischon" are kybd.c and X3270.xad; they actually contain

   Derived from work (C) Minolta (Schweiz) AG, Beat Rubischon <email address hidden>

without any further clarification of the copyright status.

The material in X3270.xad does not seem to me to be creative enough to
sustain a copyight. In kybd.c, the copyright notice seems to cover
only the 40-line function FieldExit_action(). This is probably complex
enough that we should take copyright seriously for it.

It appears that the interpretative paragraph "What this means ..." is
the work of the main upstream author. What it says is demonstrably
false - that is *not* what a naked copyright notice means; a naked
copyright notice means, "all rights reserved, period". In the absence
of evidence to the contrary, we should conservatively assume that the
paragraph represents the main upstream's personal (and false)
supposition rather than a piece of independent information that he has
gotten from Minolta through other channels than the copyright notice
itself.

Therefore, the bug submitter is right: This software must be treated
as undistributable even in non-free unless we can unearth convincing
evidence that Minolta indeed does permit us to distribute code derived
from their work. Failing that, the only option is to do a cleanroom
reimplementation of FieldExit_action() and/or preventively lobotomize
the .orig.tar.gz we distribute through the archives.

--
Henning Makholm "You want to know where my brain is,
                                    spetsnaz girl? Do you? Look behind you."

[Branden Robinson (branden)]

I have reviewed the (very well-written -- kudos to Carey Evans)
copyright file in question.

On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 07:31:21PM +0100, Andrew Saunders wrote:
> On Thu, 13 May 2004 10:35:27 -0400 (EDT)
> Richard A Nelson <email address hidden> wrote:
[...]
> > Sigh... did you not notice from which pool this came ?

Sigh.

"Non-free" means "does not satisfy the DFSG, but is freely
distributable", not "all bets are off".

> Even Non-Free packages must as a minimum be legally distributable by
> the Project to qualify for inclusion in the archive. I'm surprised you
> could be a DD and yet not know this.

After witnessing the nuclear conflagration of clueless rhetoric about
the meaning of the Social Contract, I am sadly not surprised at all.

> > I'm all for constructive criticism; something I can take to upstream
> > - and he has done some work to improve the situation based upon
> > earlier conversations. However, knee-jerk responces (like this) will
> > be simply routed to /dev/null.
>
> If you disagree with my analysis of the situation, how about providing
> a coherent rebuttal as opposed to just dismissing my concerns out of
> hand?

Because that would require the package maintainer to think about his
packages's content and licensing instead of protecting Debian's honor
from "non-free flaming bigots".

I suggest you save your heroic defenses of useful software that "offends
the puritans" for situations where the facts are on your side.
Otherwise you merely reinforce the reputation certain self-described
"pragmatists" on the non-free issue are developing for carelessness and
ignorance.

> > If you wish to be helpful, I'll be happy to blast the copyright info
> > to debian-legal for further critique. If you wish to just blather,
> > consider this a *plonk*.

Sadly, the blather in this instance seems to be coming from the package
maintainer.

Rick, I think you owe Andrew an apology.

--
G. Branden Robinson | Intellectual property is neither
Debian GNU/Linux | intellectual nor property.
<email address hidden> | Discuss.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Linda Richman

[James Troup (james-nocrew)]

Hi,

This issue has been raised before and cleared up.

http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1998/04/msg01070.html

--
James

[Niklas Vainio (nvainio)]

James Troup:
> This issue has been raised before and cleared up.
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1998/04/msg01070.html

Would the package maintainer please include that information in the
copyright-file?

    - Nikke

--
Niklas Vainio <email address hidden>

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Automatically imported from Debian bug report #248853
http://bugs.debian.org/248853

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-Id: <email address hidden>
Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 15:24:39 +0100
From: Andrew Saunders <email address hidden>
To: <email address hidden>
Subject: 3270: 5250 emulation code, all rights reserved

Package: 3270
Version: all
Severity: serious
Justification: Policy 2.3

See the license terms here:

http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/non-free/3/3270/3270_3.3.2p1-1/copyright

The copyright holder of the 5250 emulation code appears to have
granted no permissions whatsoever; there is just the bare copyright
declaration on its own. Since copyright law works on the basis that
pretty much all rights are reserved (barring fair use etc) unless
expressly stated otherwise, the 5250 emulation code and all code that
could be considered to have been derived from it are most definitely
not legally distributable by Debian.

Similarly, the portions of code copyrighted by Georgia Tech Research
Corporation are not distributable either, since the only right
explicitly granted is that to "public use" (whatever that means).

IMO, the 3270 packages should be removed from the archive immediately.

--
Andrew Saunders

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 10:35:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: Richard A Nelson <email address hidden>
To: Andrew Saunders <email address hidden>, <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Bug#248853: 3270: 5250 emulation code, all rights reserved

On Thu, 13 May 2004, Andrew Saunders wrote:

> Package: 3270
> Version: all
> Severity: serious
> Justification: Policy 2.3
>
> See the license terms here:
>
> http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/non-free/3/3270/3270_3.3.2p1-1/copyright
--------------------------------------------^^^^^^^^^---------------------------

> The copyright holder of the 5250 emulation code appears to have
> granted no permissions whatsoever; there is just the bare copyright
> declaration on its own. Since copyright law works on the basis that
> pretty much all rights are reserved (barring fair use etc) unless
> expressly stated otherwise, the 5250 emulation code and all code that
> could be considered to have been derived from it are most definitely
> not legally distributable by Debian.
>
> Similarly, the portions of code copyrighted by Georgia Tech Research
> Corporation are not distributable either, since the only right
> explicitly granted is that to "public use" (whatever that means).
>
> IMO, the 3270 packages should be removed from the archive immediately.

Sigh... did you not notice from which pool this came ?

I'm all for constructive criticism; something I can take to upstream -
and he has done some work to improve the situation based upon earlier
conversations. However, knee-jerk responces (like this) will be simply
routed to /dev/null.

If you wish to be helpful, I'll be happy to blast the copyright info
to debian-legal for further critique. If you wish to just blather,
consider this a *plonk*.
--
Rick Nelson
This is the solution to Debian's problem .. and since the only real way
to create more relatives of developers is to have children, we need more
sex! It's a long term investment ... it's the work itself that is
satisfying!
        -- Craig Brozefsky

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-Id: <email address hidden>
Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 19:31:21 +0100
From: Andrew Saunders <email address hidden>
To: <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Bug#248853: 3270: 5250 emulation code, all rights reserved

On Thu, 13 May 2004 10:35:27 -0400 (EDT)
Richard A Nelson <email address hidden> wrote:

> On Thu, 13 May 2004, Andrew Saunders wrote:
>
> > Package: 3270
> > Version: all
> > Severity: serious
> > Justification: Policy 2.3
> >
> > See the license terms here:
> >
> > http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/non-free/3/3270/3270_3.3.2p1-1/copyright
> --------------------------------------------^^^^^^^^^--------------
> -------------
>
> > The copyright holder of the 5250 emulation code appears to have
> > granted no permissions whatsoever; there is just the bare
> > copyright declaration on its own. Since copyright law works on the
> > basis that pretty much all rights are reserved (barring fair use
> > etc) unless expressly stated otherwise, the 5250 emulation code
> > and all code that could be considered to have been derived from it
> > are most definitely not legally distributable by Debian.
> >
> > Similarly, the portions of code copyrighted by Georgia Tech
> > Research Corporation are not distributable either, since the only
> > right explicitly granted is that to "public use" (whatever that
> > means).
> >
> > IMO, the 3270 packages should be removed from the archive
> > immediately.
>
> Sigh... did you not notice from which pool this came ?

Even Non-Free packages must as a minimum be legally distributable by
the Project to qualify for inclusion in the archive. I'm surprised you
could be a DD and yet not know this.

> I'm all for constructive criticism; something I can take to upstream
> - and he has done some work to improve the situation based upon
> earlier conversations. However, knee-jerk responces (like this) will
> be simply routed to /dev/null.

If you disagree with my analysis of the situation, how about providing
a coherent rebuttal as opposed to just dismissing my concerns out of
hand?

> If you wish to be helpful, I'll be happy to blast the copyright info
> to debian-legal for further critique. If you wish to just blather,
> consider this a *plonk*.

Appropriate X-Debbugs-CC header added. Let's see what the -legal
eagles think.

--
Andrew Saunders

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: 13 May 2004 23:16:32 +0100
From: Henning Makholm <email address hidden>
To: Andrew Saunders <email address hidden>
Cc: <email address hidden>, <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Bug#248853: 3270: 5250 emulation code, all rights reserved

Scripsit Andrew Saunders <email address hidden>

> Appropriate X-Debbugs-CC header added. Let's see what the -legal
> eagles think.

The copyright file says

| The 5250 emulation code carries one more copyright:
|
| 5250 Emulation Code Copyright Minolta (Schweiz) AG, Beat
| Rubischon.
|
| What this means is that you (whomever you may be) may use x3270 3.1
| for whatever purpose you desire, and the only restriction is that
| you include the above notices in each copy or derivative work you
| distribute.

This is a direct quote from the file */html/Lineage.html in the
upstream source. The (non-dodumentation) files that mention "Beat
Rubischon" are kybd.c and X3270.xad; they actually contain

   Derived from work (C) Minolta (Schweiz) AG, Beat Rubischon <email address hidden>

without any further clarification of the copyright status.

The material in X3270.xad does not seem to me to be creative enough to
sustain a copyight. In kybd.c, the copyright notice seems to cover
only the 40-line function FieldExit_action(). This is probably complex
enough that we should take copyright seriously for it.

It appears that the interpretative paragraph "What this means ..." is
the work of the main upstream author. What it says is demonstrably
false - that is *not* what a naked copyright notice means; a naked
copyright notice means, "all rights reserved, period". In the absence
of evidence to the contrary, we should conservatively assume that the
paragraph represents the main upstream's personal (and false)
supposition rather than a piece of independent information that he has
gotten from Minolta through other channels than the copyright notice
itself.

Therefore, the bug submitter is right: This software must be treated
as undistributable even in non-free unless we can unearth convincing
evidence that Minolta indeed does permit us to distribute code derived
from their work. Failing that, the only option is to do a cleanroom
reimplementation of FieldExit_action() and/or preventively lobotomize
the .orig.tar.gz we distribute through the archives.

--
Henning Makholm "You want to know where my brain is,
                                    spetsnaz girl? Do you? Look behind you."

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Sat, 15 May 2004 04:03:29 -0500
From: Branden Robinson <email address hidden>
To: <email address hidden>
Cc: <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Bug#248853: 3270: 5250 emulation code, all rights reserved

--F41/6/O0EvKTfNqT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I have reviewed the (very well-written -- kudos to Carey Evans)
copyright file in question.

On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 07:31:21PM +0100, Andrew Saunders wrote:
> On Thu, 13 May 2004 10:35:27 -0400 (EDT)
> Richard A Nelson <email address hidden> wrote:
[...]
> > Sigh... did you not notice from which pool this came ?

Sigh.

"Non-free" means "does not satisfy the DFSG, but is freely
distributable", not "all bets are off".

> Even Non-Free packages must as a minimum be legally distributable by
> the Project to qualify for inclusion in the archive. I'm surprised you
> could be a DD and yet not know this.

After witnessing the nuclear conflagration of clueless rhetoric about
the meaning of the Social Contract, I am sadly not surprised at all.

> > I'm all for constructive criticism; something I can take to upstream
> > - and he has done some work to improve the situation based upon
> > earlier conversations. However, knee-jerk responces (like this) will
> > be simply routed to /dev/null.
>=20
> If you disagree with my analysis of the situation, how about providing
> a coherent rebuttal as opposed to just dismissing my concerns out of
> hand?

Because that would require the package maintainer to think about his
packages's content and licensing instead of protecting Debian's honor
=66rom "non-free flaming bigots".

I suggest you save your heroic defenses of useful software that "offends
the puritans" for situations where the facts are on your side.
Otherwise you merely reinforce the reputation certain self-described
"pragmatists" on the non-free issue are developing for carelessness and
ignorance.

> > If you wish to be helpful, I'll be happy to blast the copyright info
> > to debian-legal for further critique. If you wish to just blather,
> > consider this a *plonk*.

Sadly, the blather in this instance seems to be coming from the package
maintainer.

Rick, I think you owe Andrew an apology.

--=20
G. Branden Robinson | Intellectual property is neither
Debian GNU/Linux | intellectual nor property.
<email address hidden> | Discuss.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Linda Richman

--F41/6/O0EvKTfNqT
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkCl3OEACgkQ6kxmHytGonwuwACdGPhRGqbeaayOtqajTNnby9Mm
4OoAn2XrQNLPA62BkKzaizTgCdk7upuR
=Vrlz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--F41/6/O0EvKTfNqT--

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 14:44:29 +0100
From: James Troup <email address hidden>
To: <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: 3270: 5250 emulation code, all rights reserved

Hi,

This issue has been raised before and cleared up.

http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1998/04/msg01070.html

--
James

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 10:29:09 +0300
From: Niklas Vainio <email address hidden>
To: <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: 3270: 5250 emulation code, all rights reserved

James Troup:
> This issue has been raised before and cleared up.
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1998/04/msg01070.html

Would the package maintainer please include that information in the
copyright-file?

    - Nikke

--
Niklas Vainio <email address hidden>

[Fabio Massimo Di Nitto (fabbione)]

Created an attachment (id=1)
Make clear licence section

Adding this patch should be enough to clarify the licence issue.

[Matt Zimmerman (mdz)]

We decided not to ship 3270

[Chris Cheney (ccheney-cheney)]

Here is the patch used for the delayed NMU.

Chris

[Philippe Troin (phil-fifi)]

Chris Cheney <email address hidden> writes:

> Here is the patch used for the delayed NMU.

WTF is this? And why does it belong to am-utils?

Phil.

> diff -Nrua am-utils-6.0.9.old/debian/copyright.3270 am-utils-6.0.9.new/debian/copyright.3270
> --- am-utils-6.0.9.old/debian/copyright.3270 1969-12-31 18:00:00.000000000 -0600
> +++ am-utils-6.0.9.new/debian/copyright.3270 2004-07-14 21:59:23.000000000 -0500
> @@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
> +http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1998/04/msg01070.html
> +
> +-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> +
> +Hello!
> +
> +I received the following mail by our "debian-developper" David Frei. It
> +seems that there is a little problem about the copyright of the x3270
> +code...
> +
> +> -----Forwarded message from Carey Evans <email address hidden>-----
> +>
> +> Date: 12 Apr 1998 22:45:14 +1200
> +> From: Carey Evans <email address hidden>
> +> To: <email address hidden>
> +> Subject: x3270 copyrights
> +>
> +> [...]
> +>
> +> } The 5250 emulation code carries one more copyright:
> +> }
> +> } 5250 Emulation Code Copyright © Minolta (Schweiz) AG, Beat
> +> } Rubischon.
> +>
> +> Thanks for reading this far! Any (useful) comments would be appreciated.
> +
> +Like the rest of the x3270-code, this is only a reminder that I have done
> +a little piece of work. And also like the rest of the x3270 tree everyone
> +should be able to use and/or modify this code.
> +
> +I never found any license in x3270 - I asked Paul Mattes and he gave me
> +the permission to use it in our company. By the way I gave him back the
> +code I have written to use x3270 attached on a AS/400. The license text is
> +from him ;-)
> +
> +Feel free to put the code under every license you like - but please don't
> +remove my name ;-)
> +
> +Greetings Beat Rubischon
> +
> +Beat Rubischon <email address hidden> http://www.minolta.ch/ \\|//
> +EDP-Manager <email address hidden> http://www.rubis.ch/ ( 0^0 )
> + --------------------------------------------------------oOO--(_)--OOo-
> +MINOLTA (Schweiz) AG, Riedstrasse 6, CH-8953 Dietikon
> + Voice: [phone] Fax: [phone]
> +Haus Postillion, CH-8758 Obstalden
> + Voice: [phone] Fax: [phone] AM CH9 seance74
> +
> +-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> +Version: 2.6.3ia
> +Charset: noconv
> +
> +iQCVAwUBNTJr5efisaOZGArlAQENUgP9FpA5p9pb8vy//PDtPb67YCzR2VICHEr2
> +ZOl5EeLd2C+M+AHu77mRNFV+QylVvdbtg1dKXM3lhn4B0LxPyj+LyMw3dSRKIa92
> +1PvwJwtQ4H22lp+pLIuoC3ZK6+VpxdA/6zNxO4vDTHRhUqBQ5fuEjRyT+FGbudax
> +pzwqro24omY=
> +=X3Y0
> +-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> +
> +
> +--
> +To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to <email address hidden>
> +with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact <email address hidden>

[Chris Cheney (ccheney-cheney)]

On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 09:52:00PM -0700, Philippe Troin wrote:
> Chris Cheney <email address hidden> writes:
>
> > Here is the patch used for the delayed NMU.
>
> WTF is this? And why does it belong to am-utils?

Thanks for the cluebat. I didn't read the RC bug report closely enough
and for some fubar reason the rc bug page is grouping that bug with
am-utils. I didn't notice the header said it was assigned to 3270 since
I started reading from the bottom of the bug report. :\ I have removed
the NMU from the delayed queue. The bug fix for 249666 is still needed
to be applied though. Would you like me to do that?

Thanks,
Chris

[Philippe Troin (phil-fifi)]

Chris Cheney <email address hidden> writes:

> On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 09:52:00PM -0700, Philippe Troin wrote:
> > Chris Cheney <email address hidden> writes:
> >
> > > Here is the patch used for the delayed NMU.
> >
> > WTF is this? And why does it belong to am-utils?
>
> Thanks for the cluebat. I didn't read the RC bug report closely enough
> and for some fubar reason the rc bug page is grouping that bug with
> am-utils. I didn't notice the header said it was assigned to 3270 since
> I started reading from the bottom of the bug report. :\ I have removed
> the NMU from the delayed queue. The bug fix for 249666 is still needed
> to be applied though. Would you like me to do that?

No, the change is very minor and won't break anything, and I plan to
do an am-utils update tomorrow.

Thanks for your work though, your intent was good. I was just
surprised at the new copyright file :-)

Phil.

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 23:26:24 -0500
From: Chris Cheney <email address hidden>
To: <email address hidden>, <email address hidden>
Subject: am-utils patch applied in NMU

--1LKvkjL3sHcu1TtY
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="gKMricLos+KVdGMg"
Content-Disposition: inline

--gKMricLos+KVdGMg
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

Here is the patch used for the delayed NMU.

Chris

--gKMricLos+KVdGMg
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="am-utils.diff"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

diff -Nrua am-utils-6.0.9.old/debian/changelog am-utils-6.0.9.new/debian/ch=
angelog
--- am-utils-6.0.9.old/debian/changelog 2004-07-14 23:22:14.000000000 -0500
+++ am-utils-6.0.9.new/debian/changelog 2004-07-14 22:30:57.000000000 -0500
@@ -1,3 +1,12 @@
+am-utils (6.0.9-3.1) unstable; urgency=3Dlow
+
+ * NMU.
+ * Document the 3270 code copyright information in "copyright.3270"
+ (Closes: #248853)
+ * Remove info/dir.gz info/dir.old.gz. (Closes: #249666)
+
+ -- Christopher L Cheney <email address hidden> Wed, 14 Jul 2004 22:00:00 -=
0500
+
 am-utils (6.0.9-3) unstable; urgency=3Dlow
=20
   * Relax the checks made by amq-check-wrap: it was checking that both
diff -Nrua am-utils-6.0.9.old/debian/copyright.3270 am-utils-6.0.9.new/debi=
an/copyright.3270
--- am-utils-6.0.9.old/debian/copyright.3270 1969-12-31 18:00:00.000000000 =
-0600
+++ am-utils-6.0.9.new/debian/copyright.3270 2004-07-14 21:59:23.000000000 =
-0500
@@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
+http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1998/04/msg01070.html
+
+-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
+
+Hello!
+
+I received the following mail by our "debian-developper" David Frei. It
+seems that there is a little problem about the copyright of the x3270
+code...
+
+> -----Forwarded message from Carey Evans <email address hidden>-----
+>=20
+> Date: 12 Apr 1998 22:45:14 +1200
+> From: Carey Evans <email address hidden>
+> To: <email address hidden>
+> Subject: x3270 copyrights
+>=20
+> [...]
+>=20
+> } The 5250 emulation code carries one more copyright:
+> }=20
+> } 5250 Emulation Code Copyright =A9 Minolta (Schweiz) AG, Beat
+> } Rubischon.
+>=20
+> Thanks for reading this far! Any (useful) comments would be appreciated.
+
+Like the rest of the x3270-code, this is only a reminder that I have done
+a little piece of work. And also like the rest of the x3270 tree everyone
+should be able to use and/or modify this code.
+
+I never found any license in x3270 - I asked Paul Mattes and he gave me
+the permission to use it in our company. By the way I gave him back the
+code I have written to use x3270 attached on a AS/400. The license text is
+from him ;-)
+
+Feel free to put the code under every license you like - but please don't
+remove my name ;-)
+
+Greetings Beat Rubischon
+
+Beat Rubischon <email address hidden> http://www.minolta.ch/ \\|//
+EDP-Manager <email address hidden> http://www.rubis.ch/ ( 0^0 )
+ --------------------------------------------------------oOO--(_)--OOo-
+MINOLTA (Schweiz) AG, Riedstrasse 6, CH-8953 Dietikon
+ Voice: [phone] ...

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: 14 Jul 2004 21:52:00 -0700
From: Philippe Troin <email address hidden>
To: Chris Cheney <email address hidden>
Cc: <email address hidden>, <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Bug#249666: am-utils patch applied in NMU

Chris Cheney <email address hidden> writes:

> Here is the patch used for the delayed NMU.

WTF is this? And why does it belong to am-utils?

Phil.

> diff -Nrua am-utils-6.0.9.old/debian/copyright.3270 am-utils-6.0.9.new/de=
bian/copyright.3270
> --- am-utils-6.0.9.old/debian/copyright.3270 1969-12-31 18:00:00.00000000=
0 -0600
> +++ am-utils-6.0.9.new/debian/copyright.3270 2004-07-14 21:59:23.00000000=
0 -0500
> @@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
> +http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1998/04/msg01070.html
> +
> +-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> +
> +Hello!
> +
> +I received the following mail by our "debian-developper" David Frei. It
> +seems that there is a little problem about the copyright of the x3270
> +code...
> +
> +> -----Forwarded message from Carey Evans <email address hidden>-----
> +>=20
> +> Date: 12 Apr 1998 22:45:14 +1200
> +> From: Carey Evans <email address hidden>
> +> To: <email address hidden>
> +> Subject: x3270 copyrights
> +>=20
> +> [...]
> +>=20
> +> } The 5250 emulation code carries one more copyright:
> +> }=20
> +> } 5250 Emulation Code Copyright =A9 Minolta (Schweiz) AG, Beat
> +> } Rubischon.
> +>=20
> +> Thanks for reading this far! Any (useful) comments would be appreciat=
ed.
> +
> +Like the rest of the x3270-code, this is only a reminder that I have done
> +a little piece of work. And also like the rest of the x3270 tree everyone
> +should be able to use and/or modify this code.
> +
> +I never found any license in x3270 - I asked Paul Mattes and he gave me
> +the permission to use it in our company. By the way I gave him back the
> +code I have written to use x3270 attached on a AS/400. The license text =
is
> +from him ;-)
> +
> +Feel free to put the code under every license you like - but please don't
> +remove my name ;-)
> +
> +Greetings Beat Rubischon
> +
> +Beat Rubischon <email address hidden> http://www.minolta.ch/ \\|//
> +EDP-Manager <email address hidden> http://www.rubis.ch/ ( 0^0 )
> + --------------------------------------------------------oOO--(_)--OOo-
> +MINOLTA (Schweiz) AG, Riedstrasse 6, CH-8953 Dietikon
> + Voice: [phone] Fax: [phone]
> +Haus Postillion, CH-8758 Obstalden
> + Voice: [phone] Fax: [phone] AM CH9 seance74
> +
> +-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> +Version: 2.6.3ia
> +Charset: noconv
> +
> +iQCVAwUBNTJr5efisaOZGArlAQENUgP9FpA5p9pb8vy//PDtPb67YCzR2VICHEr2
> +ZOl5EeLd2C+M+AHu77mRNFV+QylVvdbtg1dKXM3lhn4B0LxPyj+LyMw3dSRKIa92
> +1PvwJwtQ4H22lp+pLIuoC3ZK6+VpxdA/6zNxO4vDTHRhUqBQ5fuEjRyT+FGbudax
> +pzwqro24omY=3D
> +=3DX3Y0
> +-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> +
> +
> +--
> +To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to <email address hidden>
> +with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact <email address hidden>=
n.org

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 01:25:58 -0500
From: Chris Cheney <email address hidden>
To: Philippe Troin <email address hidden>
Cc: <email address hidden>, <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Bug#249666: am-utils patch applied in NMU

--84ND8YJRMFlzkrP4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 09:52:00PM -0700, Philippe Troin wrote:
> Chris Cheney <email address hidden> writes:
>=20
> > Here is the patch used for the delayed NMU.
>=20
> WTF is this? And why does it belong to am-utils?

Thanks for the cluebat. I didn't read the RC bug report closely enough
and for some fubar reason the rc bug page is grouping that bug with
am-utils. I didn't notice the header said it was assigned to 3270 since
I started reading from the bottom of the bug report. :\ I have removed=20
the NMU from the delayed queue. The bug fix for 249666 is still needed
to be applied though. Would you like me to do that?

Thanks,
Chris

--84ND8YJRMFlzkrP4
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFA9iN20QZas444SvIRAiCmAJ9geIkMj3tW7eO+8UXNUnLz8CJz1wCfW3na
SLhuEXIn87AwmCZPKWC8KW8=
=LyOe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--84ND8YJRMFlzkrP4--

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: 15 Jul 2004 00:06:40 -0700
From: Philippe Troin <email address hidden>
To: Chris Cheney <email address hidden>
Cc: <email address hidden>, <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Bug#249666: am-utils patch applied in NMU

Chris Cheney <email address hidden> writes:

> On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 09:52:00PM -0700, Philippe Troin wrote:
> > Chris Cheney <email address hidden> writes:
> >
> > > Here is the patch used for the delayed NMU.
> >
> > WTF is this? And why does it belong to am-utils?
>
> Thanks for the cluebat. I didn't read the RC bug report closely enough
> and for some fubar reason the rc bug page is grouping that bug with
> am-utils. I didn't notice the header said it was assigned to 3270 since
> I started reading from the bottom of the bug report. :\ I have removed
> the NMU from the delayed queue. The bug fix for 249666 is still needed
> to be applied though. Would you like me to do that?

No, the change is very minor and won't break anything, and I plan to
do an am-utils update tomorrow.

Thanks for your work though, your intent was good. I was just
surprised at the new copyright file :-)

Phil.

[Nathanael Nerode (neroden-twcny)]

In case anyone was wondering, this is far from cleared up. :-(

 >Ahh, the horror continues.
 >
 >I would be happy to remove all of the Minolta-copyrighted code.
Perhaps the best choice.

Beat Rubischon has sent a nice message apparently granting permission to
use his code under "any license" as long as his name is preserved
(earlier in the bug trail) -- so for anything copyrighted by him, we're OK.

*UN*fortunately he apparently isn't the sole copyright holder of the
5250 code. Permission would be needed from Minolta, and I seriously
doubt he has the right to speak for them, even though he's an employee.
  I doubt he wants to go to the trouble of clearing this with Minolta's
legal department. :-(

 >As for the "what this means" paragraph in the Lineage file, that was
 >written
 >by an idiot, and should be removed (in fact, I thought I had removed
it >already).
Well, that's simple then. :-)

 >As for the Georgia Tech copyrighted code, I've been through this issue
 >with
 >them twice over the years, and the "public use" language was something
 >they
 >suggested. I don't know what it means, either. Shall I give it
 >another go
 >with them, to see if they will allow a different copyright notice? If
 >so,
 >what kinds of notices would be acceptable?

Ideally, the MIT/X11-like license already used by most of the code; that
would look like this:
 > Copyright © 1989 by Georgia Tech Research Corporation, Atlanta, GA 30332.
 > Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its
 >documentation for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted,
 >provided that the above copyright notice appear in all copies and that
 >both that copyright notice and this permission notice appear in
 >supporting documentation.

(It could also be consolidated with the other essentially identical
notices.)

If they don't like that, perhaps change it to "hereby granted to all
members of the public"? That's probably (hopefully) what they mean by
"public use".

Alternately, the Georgia Institute of Technology license appears to be
an acceptable and DFSG-free license (-legal, please verify -- I'm not
100% sure). That, changed for Georgia Tech Research, would look like this:
 > Copyright © 1989 by Georgia Tech Research Corporation, Atlanta, GA 30332.
 >All rights reserved except for those rights explicitly mentioned below.
 >Permission is granted to distribute freely or to modify and distribute
 >freely any materials and information contained herein as long as the
 >above copyright and all terms associated with it remain intact.

This appears to be a free, all-permissive license. (Debian-legal should
probably comment, of course; I am assuming that "freely" is not a no-fee
restriction but simply intended to make the permission broad, and that
"copy" is clearly implied by "distribute". Ideally the copyright
holders would clarify that my interpretation is the same as theirs.) If
Georgia Tech Research Corporation has some relationship with the Georgia
Institute of Technology, it might be more amenable to using a "familiar"
license statement.

If none of these options work for them, we really need to figure out
what they...

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 00:33:22 -0400
From: Nathanael Nerode <email address hidden>
To: <email address hidden>
CC: <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Bug#248853: 3270: 5250 emulation code, all rights reserved

In case anyone was wondering, this is far from cleared up. :-(

 >Ahh, the horror continues.
 >
 >I would be happy to remove all of the Minolta-copyrighted code.
Perhaps the best choice.

Beat Rubischon has sent a nice message apparently granting permission to=20
use his code under "any license" as long as his name is preserved=20
(earlier in the bug trail) -- so for anything copyrighted by him, we're O=
K.

*UN*fortunately he apparently isn't the sole copyright holder of the=20
5250 code. Permission would be needed from Minolta, and I seriously=20
doubt he has the right to speak for them, even though he's an employee.=20
  I doubt he wants to go to the trouble of clearing this with Minolta's=20
legal department. :-(

 >As for the "what this means" paragraph in the Lineage file, that was=20
 >written
 >by an idiot, and should be removed (in fact, I thought I had removed=20
it >already).
Well, that's simple then. :-)

 >As for the Georgia Tech copyrighted code, I've been through this issue=20
 >with
 >them twice over the years, and the "public use" language was something=20
 >they
 >suggested. I don't know what it means, either. Shall I give it=20
 >another go
 >with them, to see if they will allow a different copyright notice? If=20
 >so,
 >what kinds of notices would be acceptable?

Ideally, the MIT/X11-like license already used by most of the code; that=20
would look like this:
 > Copyright =A9 1989 by Georgia Tech Research Corporation, Atlanta, GA 3=
0332.
 > Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its=20
 >documentation for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted,=20
 >provided that the above copyright notice appear in all copies and that=20
 >both that copyright notice and this permission notice appear in=20
 >supporting documentation.

(It could also be consolidated with the other essentially identical=20
notices.)

If they don't like that, perhaps change it to "hereby granted to all=20
members of the public"? That's probably (hopefully) what they mean by=20
"public use".

Alternately, the Georgia Institute of Technology license appears to be=20
an acceptable and DFSG-free license (-legal, please verify -- I'm not=20
100% sure). That, changed for Georgia Tech Research, would look like thi=
s:
 > Copyright =A9 1989 by Georgia Tech Research Corporation, Atlanta, GA 3=
0332.
 >All rights reserved except for those rights explicitly mentioned below.
 >Permission is granted to distribute freely or to modify and distribute=20
 >freely any materials and information contained herein as long as the=20
 >above copyright and all terms associated with it remain intact.

This appears to be a free, all-permissive license. (Debian-legal should=20
probably comment, of course; I am assuming that "freely" is not a no-fee=20
restriction but simply intended to make the permission broad, and that=20
"copy" is clearly implied by "distribute". Ideally the copy...

[Branden Robinson (branden)]

clone 248853 -1
retitle -1 ftp.debian.org: please remove un-redistributable 3270 package from the archive
reassign -1 ftp.debian.org
thanks

Given that the package maintainer has taken no visible action on this in
over 4 months, I recommend removing this package from Debian's FTP archives
so as to reduce our potential liability for copyright infringements.

Archive admins: in a nutshell, there is code copyrighted by the Minolta
corporation in the 3270 package for which there is no statement of license.

For reference, the affected code appears to be:

[apt-get source package, cd into its directory, and run "./debian/rules
unpack".]

c3270-3.3/kybd.c:FieldExit_action() [1]
c3270-3.3/X3270.xad: apparently lines 733 to 763, inclusive [2]
s3270-3.3/kybd.c:FieldExit_action() [1]
tcl3270-3.3/kybd.c:FieldExit_action() [1]
x3270-3.3/kybd.c:FieldExit_action() [1]

All in all, it's a pretty small amount of material that falls under this
problematic copyright, but if the package maintainer doesn't feel it's
important to rectify the issue -- for instance, by asking for assistance
in clean-room reimplementing the affected portion -- then that's his
prerogative, and the package should be removed.

Thanks for your time.

On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 12:33:22AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> In case anyone was wondering, this is far from cleared up. :-(
[...]
> Beat Rubischon has sent a nice message apparently granting permission to
> use his code under "any license" as long as his name is preserved
> (earlier in the bug trail) -- so for anything copyrighted by him, we're OK.
>
> *UN*fortunately he apparently isn't the sole copyright holder of the
> 5250 code. Permission would be needed from Minolta, and I seriously
> doubt he has the right to speak for them, even though he's an employee.
> I doubt he wants to go to the trouble of clearing this with Minolta's
> legal department. :-(

[1] A C function of 39 lines.
[2] This is simply an Xt event translation table. It contains basic
    mappings from Xt event names to Xt actions, some of which appear to be
    stock and some of which are registered by the code. I'm not sure this
    is copyrightable.

--
G. Branden Robinson | Good judgement comes from
Debian GNU/Linux | experience; experience comes from
<email address hidden> | bad judgement.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Fred Brooks

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 01:58:22 -0500
From: Branden Robinson <email address hidden>
To: <email address hidden>, <email address hidden>,
 <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Bug#248853: 3270: 5250 emulation code, all rights reserved

--0vzXIDBeUiKkjNJl
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

clone 248853 -1
retitle -1 ftp.debian.org: please remove un-redistributable 3270 package fr=
om the archive
reassign -1 ftp.debian.org
thanks

Given that the package maintainer has taken no visible action on this in
over 4 months, I recommend removing this package from Debian's FTP archives
so as to reduce our potential liability for copyright infringements.

Archive admins: in a nutshell, there is code copyrighted by the Minolta
corporation in the 3270 package for which there is no statement of license.

For reference, the affected code appears to be:

[apt-get source package, cd into its directory, and run "./debian/rules
unpack".]

c3270-3.3/kybd.c:FieldExit_action() [1]
c3270-3.3/X3270.xad: apparently lines 733 to 763, inclusive [2]
s3270-3.3/kybd.c:FieldExit_action() [1]
tcl3270-3.3/kybd.c:FieldExit_action() [1]
x3270-3.3/kybd.c:FieldExit_action() [1]

All in all, it's a pretty small amount of material that falls under this
problematic copyright, but if the package maintainer doesn't feel it's
important to rectify the issue -- for instance, by asking for assistance
in clean-room reimplementing the affected portion -- then that's his
prerogative, and the package should be removed.

Thanks for your time.

On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 12:33:22AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> In case anyone was wondering, this is far from cleared up. :-(
[...]
> Beat Rubischon has sent a nice message apparently granting permission to=
=20
> use his code under "any license" as long as his name is preserved=20
> (earlier in the bug trail) -- so for anything copyrighted by him, we're O=
K.
>=20
> *UN*fortunately he apparently isn't the sole copyright holder of the=20
> 5250 code. Permission would be needed from Minolta, and I seriously=20
> doubt he has the right to speak for them, even though he's an employee.=
=20
> I doubt he wants to go to the trouble of clearing this with Minolta's=20
> legal department. :-(

[1] A C function of 39 lines.
[2] This is simply an Xt event translation table. It contains basic
    mappings from Xt event names to Xt actions, some of which appear to be
    stock and some of which are registered by the code. I'm not sure this
    is copyrightable.

--=20
G. Branden Robinson | Good judgement comes from
Debian GNU/Linux | experience; experience comes from
<email address hidden> | bad judgement.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Fred Brooks

--0vzXIDBeUiKkjNJl
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkHLvg4ACgkQ6kxmHytGony73gCdEOoQ7by9OjZmaAXZz51/Leor
21UAn1EouIrUIt4vQmUiWREn...

[Jeroen van Wolffelaar (jeroenvw)]

retitle 287083 RM: 3270 -- RoQA; undistributable code in non-free
tags 287083 confirmed
thanks

On Fri, Dec 24, 2004 at 01:58:22AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Given that the package maintainer has taken no visible action on this in
> over 4 months, I recommend removing this package from Debian's FTP archives
> so as to reduce our potential liability for copyright infringements.

Richard, I'm hereby confirming this removal request, it is well over one
month old, and you didn't react in any way to this bug in at least five
months. Please reply immediately if you disagree with removing this
package.

Thanks,
--Jeroen

--
Jeroen van Wolffelaar
<email address hidden>
http://jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 02:43:39 +0100
From: Jeroen van Wolffelaar <email address hidden>
To: <email address hidden>, Richard A Nelson <email address hidden>,
 <email address hidden>, <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Bug#248853: 3270: 5250 emulation code, all rights reserved

retitle 287083 RM: 3270 -- RoQA; undistributable code in non-free
tags 287083 confirmed
thanks

On Fri, Dec 24, 2004 at 01:58:22AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Given that the package maintainer has taken no visible action on this in
> over 4 months, I recommend removing this package from Debian's FTP archives
> so as to reduce our potential liability for copyright infringements.

Richard, I'm hereby confirming this removal request, it is well over one
month old, and you didn't react in any way to this bug in at least five
months. Please reply immediately if you disagree with removing this
package.

Thanks,
--Jeroen

--
Jeroen van Wolffelaar
<email address hidden>
http://jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl

[Martin Michlmayr (tbm)]

The 3270 packages have been removed because of legal issues: the code
is undistributable, even in non-free.
--
Martin Michlmayr
http://www.cyrius.com/

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 21:21:52 +0000
From: Martin Michlmayr <email address hidden>
To: <email address hidden>, <email address hidden>,
 <email address hidden>
Subject: Removed

The 3270 packages have been removed because of legal issues: the code
is undistributable, even in non-free.
--
Martin Michlmayr
http://www.cyrius.com/

[Elad Tsur (elad)]

As a user who used x3270 I am very displeased about the disappearance of x3270 from Debian. I read here about the events that caused this and I'm amazed. It seem to me the the situation can be cleared by sending few emails and instead the pacage was removed. If the package maintainer did not see for this that's his fault, not the users'. Somone else shoult take on himself to work ariund this problems and make x3270 available again.

Elad Tsur

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-Id: <email address hidden>
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 14:24:45 +0200
From: Elad Tsur <email address hidden>
To: <email address hidden>
Subject: Can someone please resolve this problem so x3270 will be back in Debian?

As a user who used x3270 I am very displeased about the disappearance of x3270 from Debian. I read here about the events that caused this and I'm amazed. It seem to me the the situation can be cleared by sending few emails and instead the pacage was removed. If the package maintainer did not see for this that's his fault, not the users'. Somone else shoult take on himself to work ariund this problems and make x3270 available again.

Elad Tsur

[Cowboy (cowboy-debian)]

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005, Elad Tsur wrote:

> As a user who used x3270 I am very displeased about the disappearance of
> x3270 from Debian.

No more so than I, I'm sure.

> I read here about the events that caused this and I'm amazed.

Ditto.

> It seem to me the the situation can be cleared by sending few emails
> and instead the pacage was removed.

You've only read about the most recent issue... This has been battled
for *many* years and the DFSG crew is growing more vigilant - at the
expense of the pragmatists amongs us :(

> If the package maintainer did not see for this that's his fault,
> not the users'.

There has been some progress, but I grew weary of some of the (imnsho)
BS going on in the group of late. I will re-opoen the discussion with
the upstream, who is easy to work with, but also weary of this issue.

> Somone else shoult take on himself to work ariund this problems and
> make x3270 available again.

I'm sorry, but with the current trend in Debian, x3270 may never make
it back... There still copyright issues (less so than before), and
until these folks are abated, I don't see a change.

I still need and use x3270, in fact I've just put the newest version up
at: http://people.debian.org/~cowboy/debian/x3270/dists/unstable/

That version is not well tested (just built and verified), and will
be going through some changes as I try and fix older bugs.

I intend to keep that available and maintained.

--
Rick Nelson
<gholam> well I'm impressed
<gholam> win98 managed to crash X from within vmware.
* gholam applauds.

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 17:04:45 -0700 (PDT)
From: Richard A Nelson <email address hidden>
To: Elad Tsur <email address hidden>, <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Bug#248853: Can someone please resolve this problem so x3270
 will be back in Debian?

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005, Elad Tsur wrote:

> As a user who used x3270 I am very displeased about the disappearance of
> x3270 from Debian.

No more so than I, I'm sure.

> I read here about the events that caused this and I'm amazed.

Ditto.

> It seem to me the the situation can be cleared by sending few emails
> and instead the pacage was removed.

You've only read about the most recent issue... This has been battled
for *many* years and the DFSG crew is growing more vigilant - at the
expense of the pragmatists amongs us :(

> If the package maintainer did not see for this that's his fault,
> not the users'.

There has been some progress, but I grew weary of some of the (imnsho)
BS going on in the group of late. I will re-opoen the discussion with
the upstream, who is easy to work with, but also weary of this issue.

> Somone else shoult take on himself to work ariund this problems and
> make x3270 available again.

I'm sorry, but with the current trend in Debian, x3270 may never make
it back... There still copyright issues (less so than before), and
until these folks are abated, I don't see a change.

I still need and use x3270, in fact I've just put the newest version up
at: http://people.debian.org/~cowboy/debian/x3270/dists/unstable/

That version is not well tested (just built and verified), and will
be going through some changes as I try and fix older bugs.

I intend to keep that available and maintained.

--
Rick Nelson
<gholam> well I'm impressed
<gholam> win98 managed to crash X from within vmware.
* gholam applauds.

[Andrew Saunders (syntaxis-gmail)]

On Mon, 11 April 2005, Richard A Nelson wrote:

>> It seem to me the the situation can be cleared by sending few emails
>> and instead the pacage was removed.

> You've only read about the most recent issue... This has been battled
> for *many* years and the DFSG crew is growing more vigilant - at the
> expense of the pragmatists amongs us :(

The need for a suitable permission statement from the rights holder(s)
for Debian to distribute any given copyrighted work is a legal
requirement, and has nothing at all to do with the DFSG.

> I still need and use x3270, in fact I've just put the newest version up at:
> http://people.debian.org/~cowboy/debian/x3270/dists/unstable/

As stated in the follow-ups to the bug report, the package was removed
from the FTP archive in order to reduce the Project's potential
liability for copyright infringement. Now, thanks to you, the Project
is *still* hosting and distributing copyrighted code from within its
infrastructure without the permissions required to legally do so.

I'm assuming that the only reason DSA haven't already moved to enforce
the Machine Usage Policy[1] is that they're not yet aware of this most
blatant and deliberate breach on your part. CC to -admin added in
order to bring it to their attention.

[1] http://www.debian.org/devel/dmup

[Glenn Maynard (glenn-zewt)]

(-admin dropped; nothing in this reply needs to go there)

On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 01:34:32AM +0100, Andrew Saunders wrote:
> On Mon, 11 April 2005, Richard A Nelson wrote:
>
> >> It seem to me the the situation can be cleared by sending few emails
> >> and instead the pacage was removed.
>
> > You've only read about the most recent issue... This has been battled
> > for *many* years and the DFSG crew is growing more vigilant - at the
> > expense of the pragmatists amongs us :(

If "pragmatism" is "I don't care whether a work is Free or not", you're
in the wrong project. (No, really. Debian is about Free Software, and
if that's so low a priority for you that you'll label is an "expense",
you're really in the wrong place.)

But if "pragmatism" is "I don't care whether I might get myself or the project
sued by distributing something", you might be more at home with a warez
group. :)

That said, I see a license at http://x3270.bgp.nu/license.html. I don't
know if there's any indication that some source files in the distribution
are not, in fact, available under that license, but I wouldn't consider
simply lacking a notice on a source file to be an indication of much of
anything, as that license seems to claim to apply to the "x3270" package
as a whole. On the other hand, I can't find any licensing information at
all in the tarball itself, which at the very least isn't a good sign of
the upstream author's licensing diligence.

(Sorry for not spending the time to review #248853 in full, but the derisive,
knee-jerk dismissal of legal issues at its start--a year ago, to be fair--puts
me in little mood to read the thread much further. :)

--
Glenn Maynard

[Daniel Robitaille (robitaille)]

bug report was closed in Debian in March 2005