Re: [Inkscape-devel] "COMPUTERBILD"?
Quoting Thorsten Wilms <t_w_@...123...>:
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 05:56:48PM -0700, Bryce Harrington wrote:
I've been emailed by someone from a magazine called
"ComputerBild", that
is said to be popular in Europe. Could someone confirm for me
that it
exists?
Yes. It's a spinoff of Bild, a german newspaper with huge headlines and full of gossip. It's very well known and targeted at those who don't know better ;-)
Ah, Bild... Hmm, so do they want to interview you?
I wonder whether it might not be wise to involve the German-speakers among us, to give them replies auf Deutsch. Avoid being misquoted AND mistranslated. ^_-
(my own German abilities are pretty weak though)
-mental
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 11:06:10AM -0400, mental@...3... wrote:
Quoting Thorsten Wilms <t_w_@...123...>:
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 05:56:48PM -0700, Bryce Harrington wrote:
I've been emailed by someone from a magazine called
"ComputerBild", that
is said to be popular in Europe. Could someone confirm for me
that it
exists?
Yes. It's a spinoff of Bild, a german newspaper with huge headlines and full of gossip. It's very well known and targeted at those who don't know better ;-)
Ah, Bild... Hmm, so do they want to interview you?
No, they want to include a copy of Inkscape on their CD and need some special license agreement thingee written. I'm thinking about just saying they can redistribute it under terms of the GPL, but if they're a really important magazine I don't want to blow them off.
Bryce
Quoting Bryce Harrington <bryce@...260...>:
No, they want to include a copy of Inkscape on their CD and need some special license agreement thingee written. I'm thinking
about
just saying they can redistribute it under terms of the GPL, but
if
they're a really important magazine I don't want to blow them off.
Not sure that's blowing them off, exactly. We don't really have the rights to make any license arrangements BUT the GPL.
-mental
On 4/15/05, mental@...3... <mental@...3...> wrote:
Not sure that's blowing them off, exactly. We don't really have the rights to make any license arrangements BUT the GPL.
Actually we have, but only if we achieve the agreement of _all_ authors of the code, which is not realistic.
On Fri, 2005-04-15 at 14:45 -0300, bulia byak wrote:
On 4/15/05, mental@...3... <mental@...3...> wrote:
Not sure that's blowing them off, exactly. We don't really have the rights to make any license arrangements BUT the GPL.
Actually we have, but only if we achieve the agreement of _all_ authors of the code, which is not realistic.
Bryce, I think it is important that they distribute it as is with GPL intact with the information you've given so far. What specifics are they seeking? They shouldn't have any problems distributing it under GPL on the disk, right? They aren't selling Inkscape, but giving it away along with the magazine. Maybe you could get a little more info. about what they want to do to be able make a better decision.
Jon
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_ide95&alloc_id%14396&op=click _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 11:58:58AM -0700, Jon Phillips wrote:
On Fri, 2005-04-15 at 14:45 -0300, bulia byak wrote:
On 4/15/05, mental@...3... <mental@...3...> wrote:
Not sure that's blowing them off, exactly. We don't really have the rights to make any license arrangements BUT the GPL.
Actually we have, but only if we achieve the agreement of _all_ authors of the code, which is not realistic.
Bryce, I think it is important that they distribute it as is with GPL intact with the information you've given so far. What specifics are they seeking? They shouldn't have any problems distributing it under GPL on the disk, right? They aren't selling Inkscape, but giving it away along with the magazine. Maybe you could get a little more info. about what they want to do to be able make a better decision.
I've attached the boilerplate license agreement that they sent me. Below is the text of the email directing what to do:
"Join in. For the sake of good order, please fax the signed license agreement (please delete inapplicable terms) back to us (+49/40/34 724 710)"
I've thought maybe this could be stripped down to essentially (but politely) say, "This software can be redistributed freely under the terms of the GPL". Anyway, take a look and let me know what you think. Or send me a copy with what you think it should say.
Bryce
Hmm, trying again with the attachment...
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 01:31:48PM -0700, Bryce Harrington wrote:
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 11:58:58AM -0700, Jon Phillips wrote:
On Fri, 2005-04-15 at 14:45 -0300, bulia byak wrote:
On 4/15/05, mental@...3... <mental@...3...> wrote:
Not sure that's blowing them off, exactly. We don't really have the rights to make any license arrangements BUT the GPL.
Actually we have, but only if we achieve the agreement of _all_ authors of the code, which is not realistic.
Bryce, I think it is important that they distribute it as is with GPL intact with the information you've given so far. What specifics are they seeking? They shouldn't have any problems distributing it under GPL on the disk, right? They aren't selling Inkscape, but giving it away along with the magazine. Maybe you could get a little more info. about what they want to do to be able make a better decision.
I've attached the boilerplate license agreement that they sent me. Below is the text of the email directing what to do:
"Join in. For the sake of good order, please fax the signed license agreement (please delete inapplicable terms) back to us (+49/40/34 724 710)"
I've thought maybe this could be stripped down to essentially (but politely) say, "This software can be redistributed freely under the terms of the GPL". Anyway, take a look and let me know what you think. Or send me a copy with what you think it should say.
Bryce
Quoting Bryce Harrington <bryce@...260...>:
I've thought maybe this could be stripped down to essentially (but politely) say, "This software can be redistributed freely under the terms of the GPL". Anyway, take a look and let me know what you think.
I wouldn't attempt modifying the boilerplate agreement without enlisting a (German) lawyer to review it, at minimum[1].
What I would recommend is sending them a copy of the GPL, with introductory text explaining that it is the only license we offer, but that it appears to be more than sufficiently liberal for their purposes (no royalties, and no time or regional limits). Direct them to the section "TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION"[2].
Note to them that while there _is_ a requirement to make Inkscape's source code available, that requirement can be satisfied by simply including a copy of the source code on the CD (per T&C sec. 3a), which we can provide to them along with the installer/binaries[3].
It might not hurt to point out that the license is generic to several different products, but is applied to Inkscape in particular per section 0 of the terms and conditions.
-mental
[1] Even if you successfully adjusted the conditions on distribution without unintended problems due to wording issues, you obviously can't, for example, warrant that you (Bryce Harrington) are the original author, nor is there an organization legally representing all the copyright holders that you could sign on behalf of.
And that's just to my untrained eye. There are potentially more sutble gotchas due to differences in German versus US law (they come from very different legal traditions, so some basic assumptions you may take for granted are wrong).
[2] The preamble and the later suggestions for attribution may be confusing for them, but obviously we have to present the whole license document textually intact, per its own license.
[3] Yes, I know they could download it from our web site, but I suspect they would be more comfortable if we gave them everything they needed directly. They are going to have some culture shock issues here as they're coming from the proprietary world, so we may as well accomodate them where we can.
Hi,
as far as I know, the GPL license is perfectly valid in Germany. It has been confirmed last year by a court (some 'stolen' code, originally under GPL; the binaries being redistributed without any copyright/notice/source code). Furthermore, open source communities are very active out there.
I'd like to point out the fact that 'open source'magazine are really emerging in Europe. In France, there are 2 main editors pushishing 2 families of magazine (Login, Linux magazine...). Plus a Polish editor distributing some translated versions (English, German, French...) of the magazine (software 2.0 and Linux +DVD)
I'm pretty sure they can become very good advocates of Inkscape, and accept articles.
Regards,
Matiphas
Selon mental@...3...:
Quoting Bryce Harrington <bryce@...260...>:
I've thought maybe this could be stripped down to essentially (but politely) say, "This software can be redistributed freely under the terms of the GPL". Anyway, take a look and let me know what you think.
I wouldn't attempt modifying the boilerplate agreement without enlisting a (German) lawyer to review it, at minimum[1].
What I would recommend is sending them a copy of the GPL, with introductory text explaining that it is the only license we offer, but that it appears to be more than sufficiently liberal for their purposes (no royalties, and no time or regional limits). Direct them to the section "TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION"[2].
Note to them that while there _is_ a requirement to make Inkscape's source code available, that requirement can be satisfied by simply including a copy of the source code on the CD (per T&C sec. 3a), which we can provide to them along with the installer/binaries[3].
It might not hurt to point out that the license is generic to several different products, but is applied to Inkscape in particular per section 0 of the terms and conditions.
-mental
[1] Even if you successfully adjusted the conditions on distribution without unintended problems due to wording issues, you obviously can't, for example, warrant that you (Bryce Harrington) are the original author, nor is there an organization legally representing all the copyright holders that you could sign on behalf of.
And that's just to my untrained eye. There are potentially more sutble gotchas due to differences in German versus US law (they come from very different legal traditions, so some basic assumptions you may take for granted are wrong).
[2] The preamble and the later suggestions for attribution may be confusing for them, but obviously we have to present the whole license document textually intact, per its own license.
[3] Yes, I know they could download it from our web site, but I suspect they would be more comfortable if we gave them everything they needed directly. They are going to have some culture shock issues here as they're coming from the proprietary world, so we may as well accomodate them where we can.
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_ide95&alloc_id%14396&op=cick _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
I was to forget some links to the news confirming the validity of GPL in Germany.
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/04/07/23/1558219.shtml?tid=117&tid=123
The pdf of the trial conclusions (in German) can be found there : http://linuxfr.org/redirect/36078.html
The focus of this affair was againt a vendor violating the GPL license (of netfilter/iptables)
Best regards,
Matiphas
Selon matiphas@...8...:
Hi,
as far as I know, the GPL license is perfectly valid in Germany. It has been confirmed last year by a court (some 'stolen' code, originally under GPL; the binaries being redistributed without any copyright/notice/source code). Furthermore, open source communities are very active out there.
I'd like to point out the fact that 'open source'magazine are really emerging in Europe. In France, there are 2 main editors pushishing 2 families of magazine (Login, Linux magazine...). Plus a Polish editor distributing some translated versions (English, German, French...) of the magazine (software 2.0 and Linux +DVD)
I'm pretty sure they can become very good advocates of Inkscape, and accept articles.
Regards,
Matiphas
Selon mental@...3...:
Quoting Bryce Harrington <bryce@...260...>:
I've thought maybe this could be stripped down to essentially (but politely) say, "This software can be redistributed freely under the terms of the GPL". Anyway, take a look and let me know what you think.
I wouldn't attempt modifying the boilerplate agreement without enlisting a (German) lawyer to review it, at minimum[1].
What I would recommend is sending them a copy of the GPL, with introductory text explaining that it is the only license we offer, but that it appears to be more than sufficiently liberal for their purposes (no royalties, and no time or regional limits). Direct them to the section "TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION"[2].
Note to them that while there _is_ a requirement to make Inkscape's source code available, that requirement can be satisfied by simply including a copy of the source code on the CD (per T&C sec. 3a), which we can provide to them along with the installer/binaries[3].
It might not hurt to point out that the license is generic to several different products, but is applied to Inkscape in particular per section 0 of the terms and conditions.
-mental
[1] Even if you successfully adjusted the conditions on distribution without unintended problems due to wording issues, you obviously can't, for example, warrant that you (Bryce Harrington) are the original author, nor is there an organization legally representing all the copyright holders that you could sign on behalf of.
And that's just to my untrained eye. There are potentially more sutble gotchas due to differences in German versus US law (they come from very different legal traditions, so some basic assumptions you may take for granted are wrong).
[2] The preamble and the later suggestions for attribution may be confusing for them, but obviously we have to present the whole license document textually intact, per its own license.
[3] Yes, I know they could download it from our web site, but I suspect they would be more comfortable if we gave them everything they needed directly. They are going to have some culture shock issues here as they're coming from the proprietary world, so we may as well accomodate them where we can.
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_ide95&alloc_id%14396&op=cick _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_ide95&alloc_id%14396&op=cick _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
Ah got it already. The german GPL is at
They should also read and grok
In my (unprofessional) understanding, to comply, for them it would suffice to have the sources available, either on the CD or on one of their servers, AND they should forward the binary package with the german GPL prominently featured.
ralf
Quoting bulia byak <buliabyak@...400...>:
On 4/15/05, mental@...3... <mental@...3...> wrote:
Not sure that's blowing them off, exactly. We don't really have the rights to make any license arrangements BUT the GPL.
Actually we have, but only if we achieve the agreement of _all_ authors of the code, which is not realistic.
Well, by "we", I meant the current Inkscape developers, not all authors. I would be surprised if e.g. Lauris would be very cooperative.
Not that I would blame him in this case; if COMPUTERBILD want to distribute Inkscape, the GPL is good enough.
Probably this is new territory for them though; they're likely used to negotiating special licensing arrangements for packaging proprietary demos on their CDs, and their procedures are probably oriented towards that. Here, they may require a bit of hand-holding from us.
-mental
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 05:26:42PM -0400, mental@...3... wrote:
Quoting bulia byak <buliabyak@...400...>:
On 4/15/05, mental@...3... <mental@...3...> wrote:
Not sure that's blowing them off, exactly. We don't really have the rights to make any license arrangements BUT the GPL.
Actually we have, but only if we achieve the agreement of _all_ authors of the code, which is not realistic.
Well, by "we", I meant the current Inkscape developers, not all authors. I would be surprised if e.g. Lauris would be very cooperative.
Not that I would blame him in this case; if COMPUTERBILD want to distribute Inkscape, the GPL is good enough.
Probably this is new territory for them though; they're likely used to negotiating special licensing arrangements for packaging proprietary demos on their CDs, and their procedures are probably oriented towards that. Here, they may require a bit of hand-holding from us.
Right, and that's what I was referring to originally. I wasn't sure what quantity of handholding time is worth putting in. I definitely do NOT want to do anything with providing any license arrangements other than GPL, the question is just how much effort is worth putting in for people unfamiliar with inclusion of GPL software.
Beyond the difficulty in gaining everyone's agreement about different license conditions is the danger of confusing the license situation. What we have currently (GPL) gives a clear position. IMHO, time invested by a magazine to learn how to incorporate a GPL'd application will benefit them in the long run, and open them to including further OSS products in the future, which helps all of us.
Anyway, I guess I'll try to squeeze some time into drafting a License Agreement that basically says, "You may redistribute under terms of the GPL", with our take on what exactly that means. For example, that they must include a source tarball in addition to any binary packages, etc. But generally treat it just as a commentary for them on the GPL in our view moreso than a license agreement per se.
But my main question remains - has anyone actually seen this magazine in a news stand? They claim it's "the" major software publication in Europe so I'm a little surprised I've never heard of it before.
Bryce
....
But my main question remains - has anyone actually seen this magazine in a news stand? They claim it's "the" major software publication in Europe so I'm a little surprised I've never heard of it before.
Bryce
Yes, it is a big market.
Now they have two issues. One large, as PC-world with CD. And a pocket version similar to A5. Handy if you go by airplane.
You can found that on all even smaller shops.
HTH,
Adib.
Bryce Harrington wrote:
Anyway, I guess I'll try to squeeze some time into drafting a License Agreement that basically says, "You may redistribute under terms of the GPL", with our take on what exactly that means. For example, that they must include a source tarball in addition to any binary packages, etc. But generally treat it just as a commentary for them on the GPL in our view moreso than a license agreement per se.
I don't think is any need to include a source tarball, GPL requirement is satisfied just by a notice "source code available at http://inkscape.org"
On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 02:19:21PM +0300, Nicu Buculei wrote:
I don't think is any need to include a source tarball, GPL requirement is satisfied just by a notice "source code available at http://inkscape.org"
It is in our interests to include the source code on the CD. Doing so encourages people to look at & play with the source. This may in turn encourage further interest in Free Software, where you can actually play with & even get involved in the improvement of the software.
pjrm.
Peter Moulder wrote:
On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 02:19:21PM +0300, Nicu Buculei wrote:
I don't think is any need to include a source tarball, GPL requirement is satisfied just by a notice "source code available at http://inkscape.org"
It is in our interests to include the source code on the CD. Doing so encourages people to look at & play with the source. This may in turn encourage further interest in Free Software, where you can actually play with & even get involved in the improvement of the software.
pjrm.
I think that this is an excellent idea. Stress the fact that this is a collaborative project, and not just a free download.
Bob
Peter Moulder wrote:
On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 02:19:21PM +0300, Nicu Buculei wrote:
I don't think is any need to include a source tarball, GPL requirement is satisfied just by a notice "source code available at http://inkscape.org"
It is in our interests to include the source code on the CD. Doing so encourages people to look at & play with the source. This may in turn encourage further interest in Free Software, where you can actually play with & even get involved in the improvement of the software.
That would be fair enough, if this was a magazine for software developers and professionals, but it's not. People will just get confused if they see a load of source code.
Jon
On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 02:19:21PM +0300, Nicu Buculei wrote:
I don't think is any need to include a source tarball, GPL requirement is satisfied just by a notice "source code available at http://inkscape.org"
I'm not sure that that's true in this case. Excerpt from GPL (last paragraph being most relevant):
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
Given that the CD is being offered only to people buying the magazine, this seems to be commercial distribution.
commerce n 1: transactions (sales and purchases) having the objective of supplying commodities (goods and services) [syn: {commercialism}, {mercantilism}]
(WordNet 2.0)
I imagine it'd be easiest for the magazine if the source code were on the CD rather than the possibility of responding to requests for three years. Of course, the magazine distributor is welcome to make their own choice in the matter.
Regarding the issue of confusing people, we could put the source code in a separate directory accompanied by a readme (LiesMich.txt) saying that this is useful only for programmers.
Some mangled german from google translation tool:
Die Akte inkscape-0.41-source.tar.gz enthält das Quellenprogramm für Inkscape. Es ist hauptsächlich nur für Computerprogrammierer nützlich.
The file inkscape-0.41-source.tar.gz contains the source code for Inkscape. It is useful mainly only for computer programmers.
(As far as I can tell from checking with a dictionary, the translation is good with the possible exception of the usage of the word hauptsächlich; we could just remove that word from the German version if we wish.)
As for whether the source code is useful to ComputerBild readership: even if only 4 of the 4 million readers start playing with the source code and end up contributing something to a free software project, I think that's worthwhile.
pjrm.
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
[...]
I imagine it'd be easiest for the magazine if the source code were on the CD rather than the possibility of responding to requests for three years. Of course, the magazine distributor is welcome to make their own choice in the matter.
True. But I think a link to their server fulfills the above requirement. Think of those Linux distros that don't come with source on CD.
ralf
Peter Moulder <Peter.Moulder@...38...> writes:
Some mangled german from google translation tool:
Die Akte inkscape-0.41-source.tar.gz enthält das Quellenprogramm für Inkscape. Es ist hauptsächlich nur für Computerprogrammierer nützlich.
I'd say:
Die Datei inkscape-0.41-source.tar.gz enthält den Quellcode für Inkscape. Dieser ist hauptsächlich für Computerprogrammierer nützlich.
The file inkscape-0.41-source.tar.gz contains the source code for Inkscape. It is useful mainly only for computer programmers.
Cheers, Colin
On Friday 15 April 2005 23:26, mental@...3... wrote:
Quoting bulia byak <buliabyak@...400...>:
On 4/15/05, mental@...3... <mental@...3...> wrote:
Not sure that's blowing them off, exactly. We don't really have the rights to make any license arrangements BUT the GPL.
Actually we have, but only if we achieve the agreement of _all_ authors of the code, which is not realistic.
Well, by "we", I meant the current Inkscape developers, not all authors. I would be surprised if e.g. Lauris would be very cooperative.
Not that I would blame him in this case; if COMPUTERBILD want to distribute Inkscape, the GPL is good enough.
Probably this is new territory for them though; they're likely used to negotiating special licensing arrangements for packaging proprietary demos on their CDs, and their procedures are probably oriented towards that. Here, they may require a bit of hand-holding from us.
If I'm in the shops tomorrow I'll have a look to see if its there. Should be. Ill see whats on this months CD and if its an OSS project, maybe you can ask those devs for what they did.
Craig
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 11:43:56PM +0200, Craig Bradney wrote:
On Friday 15 April 2005 23:26, mental@...3... wrote:
Quoting bulia byak <buliabyak@...400...>:
On 4/15/05, mental@...3... <mental@...3...> wrote:
Not sure that's blowing them off, exactly. We don't really have the rights to make any license arrangements BUT the GPL.
Actually we have, but only if we achieve the agreement of _all_ authors of the code, which is not realistic.
Well, by "we", I meant the current Inkscape developers, not all authors. I would be surprised if e.g. Lauris would be very cooperative.
Not that I would blame him in this case; if COMPUTERBILD want to distribute Inkscape, the GPL is good enough.
Probably this is new territory for them though; they're likely used to negotiating special licensing arrangements for packaging proprietary demos on their CDs, and their procedures are probably oriented towards that. Here, they may require a bit of hand-holding from us.
If I'm in the shops tomorrow I'll have a look to see if its there. Should be. Ill see whats on this months CD and if its an OSS project, maybe you can ask those devs for what they did.
Great, thanks. Also it would be useful to know if any special steps were taken for packaging it - i.e., if it includes the GPL, a source tarball, linux packages, or whatnot. We could request the same be done for Inkscape in that case.
Bryce
On Friday 15 April 2005 23:44, Bryce Harrington wrote:
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 11:43:56PM +0200, Craig Bradney wrote:
On Friday 15 April 2005 23:26, mental@...3... wrote:
Quoting bulia byak <buliabyak@...400...>:
On 4/15/05, mental@...3... <mental@...3...> wrote:
Not sure that's blowing them off, exactly. We don't really have the rights to make any license arrangements BUT the GPL.
Actually we have, but only if we achieve the agreement of _all_ authors of the code, which is not realistic.
Well, by "we", I meant the current Inkscape developers, not all authors. I would be surprised if e.g. Lauris would be very cooperative.
Not that I would blame him in this case; if COMPUTERBILD want to distribute Inkscape, the GPL is good enough.
Probably this is new territory for them though; they're likely used to negotiating special licensing arrangements for packaging proprietary demos on their CDs, and their procedures are probably oriented towards that. Here, they may require a bit of hand-holding from us.
If I'm in the shops tomorrow I'll have a look to see if its there. Should be. Ill see whats on this months CD and if its an OSS project, maybe you can ask those devs for what they did.
Great, thanks. Also it would be useful to know if any special steps were taken for packaging it - i.e., if it includes the GPL, a source tarball, linux packages, or whatnot. We could request the same be done for Inkscape in that case.
Found it. It looks basically like a Windows mag, with the CD containing either free (and therefore old) versions of various software or free updates or versions for free doze software, plus service packs etc. Purely Windows from the quick look I had. No OSS mentioned on the CD that I could see, but I didnt buy it to go looking for GPL anywhere.
Craig
Okay... Here's what I've come up on this.
Instead of giving them a "License Agreement", I will give them a copy of the GPL and point to it as the sole source of redistribution rights. I will also enclose a cover letter that roughly resembles the form letter thingee they sent me that specifically tells them they have the rights that they want. I decided to call it "Explanation of License" so it's clear that it isn't a legal document but just a commentary.
I undestand that when there are any questions about the terms in the GPL, if the parties have something signed outlining what they believe the terms are, it can help resolve those questions.
In addition to the GPL license and explanation letter, I think we should give them:
* The 0.41 patched Windows installation package
* A tarball of the source code
* The latest Open Clip Art Library
Sound good?
Bryce
On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 09:42:39PM +0200, Craig Bradney wrote:
On Friday 15 April 2005 23:44, Bryce Harrington wrote:
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 11:43:56PM +0200, Craig Bradney wrote:
On Friday 15 April 2005 23:26, mental@...3... wrote:
Quoting bulia byak <buliabyak@...400...>:
On 4/15/05, mental@...3... <mental@...3...> wrote:
Not sure that's blowing them off, exactly. We don't really have the rights to make any license arrangements BUT the GPL.
Actually we have, but only if we achieve the agreement of _all_ authors of the code, which is not realistic.
Well, by "we", I meant the current Inkscape developers, not all authors. I would be surprised if e.g. Lauris would be very cooperative.
Not that I would blame him in this case; if COMPUTERBILD want to distribute Inkscape, the GPL is good enough.
Probably this is new territory for them though; they're likely used to negotiating special licensing arrangements for packaging proprietary demos on their CDs, and their procedures are probably oriented towards that. Here, they may require a bit of hand-holding from us.
If I'm in the shops tomorrow I'll have a look to see if its there. Should be. Ill see whats on this months CD and if its an OSS project, maybe you can ask those devs for what they did.
Great, thanks. Also it would be useful to know if any special steps were taken for packaging it - i.e., if it includes the GPL, a source tarball, linux packages, or whatnot. We could request the same be done for Inkscape in that case.
Found it. It looks basically like a Windows mag, with the CD containing either free (and therefore old) versions of various software or free updates or versions for free doze software, plus service packs etc. Purely Windows from the quick look I had. No OSS mentioned on the CD that I could see, but I didnt buy it to go looking for GPL anywhere.
You may wish to send http://www.gnu.de/gpl-ger.html, an unofficial German translation of the GNU GPL. (The translation specifically mentions that it isn't the legally the license but just a best-attemp translation thereof.)
pjrm.
On 4/18/05, Bryce Harrington <bryce@...260...> wrote:
* The 0.41 patched Windows installation package
Yes. I tested this one and it works:
http://troi.hous.es3.titan.com/inkscape/builds/Inkscape-0.41-patch.win32.exe
Please use it, though you may want to remove or replace "-patch" in the name with something more marketing-friendly.
* A tarball of the source code
NOT a tarball of course, only a zip file! There's no tar on windows. Please take this one:
http://troi.hous.es3.titan.com/inkscape/builds/inkscape-0.41-patch.tar.gz
and repack it with zip.
* The latest Open Clip Art Library
Yes.
On Mon, Apr 18, 2005 at 09:10:15AM -0300, bulia byak wrote:
On 4/18/05, Bryce Harrington <bryce@...260...> wrote:
* The 0.41 patched Windows installation packageYes. I tested this one and it works:
http://troi.hous.es3.titan.com/inkscape/builds/Inkscape-0.41-patch.win32.exe
Please use it, though you may want to remove or replace "-patch" in the name with something more marketing-friendly.
Great, thanks. Suggestions on marketing-friendly names? Would 0.41.1 be okay?
* A tarball of the source codeNOT a tarball of course, only a zip file! There's no tar on windows. Please take this one:
http://troi.hous.es3.titan.com/inkscape/builds/inkscape-0.41-patch.tar.gz
and repack it with zip.
Ahh, right you are. Thanks.
* The latest Open Clip Art LibraryYes.
Bryce
Just wanted to say thanks to everyone who pitched in some time to help with this magazine CD release of Inkscape. I was impressed how quickly it all got pulled together; quite a show of good teamwork. :-)
Bryce
I've gotten confirmation that they've received it, and it will be distributed in next month's copy of Computer Bild.
Bryce
On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 12:53:07AM -0700, Bryce Harrington wrote:
Just wanted to say thanks to everyone who pitched in some time to help with this magazine CD release of Inkscape. I was impressed how quickly it all got pulled together; quite a show of good teamwork. :-)
Bryce
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: New Crystal Reports XI. Version 11 adds new functionality designed to reduce time involved in creating, integrating, and deploying reporting solutions. Free runtime info, new features, or free trial, at: http://www.businessobjects.com/devxi/728 _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
Bryce Harrington <bryce@...260...> writes:
Okay... Here's what I've come up on this.
Instead of giving them a "License Agreement", I will give them a copy of the GPL and point to it as the sole source of redistribution rights. I will also enclose a cover letter that roughly resembles the form letter thingee they sent me that specifically tells them they have the rights that they want. I decided to call it "Explanation of License" so it's clear that it isn't a legal document but just a commentary.
Do you want to have that translated into German? I think sending it in English is okay, and a translation of the letter might introduce inaccurracies about the exact terms used and their meaning in a legal context etc.
In case you want it translated, posting the raw text to the Wiki would allow a collaborative translation.
About the text itself - should it say GPL *version 2*?
Cheers, Colin
On Mon, 2005-04-18 at 18:10, Colin Marquardt wrote:
In case you want it translated, posting the raw text to the Wiki would allow a collaborative translation.
Whoa, no. If you want a translation of a legal document, you really really want to get a bilingual lawyer who is licensed in the destination region (and probably also one who is licensed in the originating region, so they can compare notes).
-mental
On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 12:10:27AM +0200, Colin Marquardt wrote:
Bryce Harrington <bryce@...260...> writes:
Okay... Here's what I've come up on this.
Instead of giving them a "License Agreement", I will give them a copy of the GPL and point to it as the sole source of redistribution rights. I will also enclose a cover letter that roughly resembles the form letter thingee they sent me that specifically tells them they have the rights that they want. I decided to call it "Explanation of License" so it's clear that it isn't a legal document but just a commentary.
Do you want to have that translated into German? I think sending it in English is okay, and a translation of the letter might introduce inaccurracies about the exact terms used and their meaning in a legal context etc.
I had thought originally that providing a translation would be nice, but I think it's a good point that providing a translation might introduce inaccuracies. Better to have a Single version, and leave mistakes to their interpretation of English rather than have us introduce them inadvertantly due to translation mistakes.
Bryce
Hi,
ComputerBild has in every issue one or two CDs. In the past I used to buy an issue if I needed a big chunk of software (servicepacks, archiver, browser, etc)
For me it is ok if the ship inkscape with their magazine.
Could we eventually wrap a stable version with the current multilanguage installer ? To be more handy for the non english speeking germans ;-) Also the licence agreement mentions online-download. I think they should link to the inkscape projectpage. Instead of having an old version on their homepage.
HTH,
Adib. ---
mental@...3... schrieb:
Quoting bulia byak <buliabyak@...400...>:
On 4/15/05, mental@...3... <mental@...3...> wrote:
Not sure that's blowing them off, exactly. We don't really have the rights to make any license arrangements BUT the GPL.
Actually we have, but only if we achieve the agreement of _all_ authors of the code, which is not realistic.
Well, by "we", I meant the current Inkscape developers, not all authors. I would be surprised if e.g. Lauris would be very cooperative.
Not that I would blame him in this case; if COMPUTERBILD want to distribute Inkscape, the GPL is good enough.
Probably this is new territory for them though; they're likely used to negotiating special licensing arrangements for packaging proprietary demos on their CDs, and their procedures are probably oriented towards that. Here, they may require a bit of hand-holding from us.
-mental
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_ide95&alloc_id%14396&op=click _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
participants (13)
-
unknown＠example.com -
Adib Taraben -
Bob Jamison -
Bryce Harrington -
bulia byak -
Colin Marquardt -
Craig Bradney -
Jon Phillips -
Jonathan Leighton -
MenTaLguY -
Nicu Buculei -
Peter Moulder -
Ralf Stephan