Debian Bug report logs - #354216
upstream license patched in debian package

Toggle useless messages

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Kel Modderman <kelrin@tpg.com.au>

To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>

Cc: debian-legal@lists.debian.org

Subject: upstream license patched in debian package

Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 23:05:37 +1000

Package: sl-modem-source
Version: 2.9.9d+e-pre2-2
|Severity: grave

+sl-modem (2.9.9d+e-pre2-1) unstable; urgency=low
+
+  * New upstream pre-release (closes: #327588)
+  * added sv.po from Daniel Nylander (closes: #330436)
+  * slmodemd.1 manpage from Erik Schanze (closes: #335369)
+  * defining URB_ASYNC_UNLINK if not set, needed by recent kernels
+  * applied patch for class/simple_class transition from Gentoo lists with
+    some fixes (closes: #325799)
+  * changed the MODULE_LICENSE string to "Dual BSD/GPL" since the license
+    is actually a BSD license clone (closes: #327545)
+  * not including the old hotplug script, merged its code into the init 
script
+    and added an udev rules file to run it. Needs real testing with a
+    Smartlink USB modem which I do not have (closes: #338740)
+  * disabled the "PCI device grabbing warning" code which caused
+    OOpses on 2.6.15
+
+ -- Eduard Bloch <blade@debian.org>  Sun, 15 Jan 2006 14:49:45 +0100

I believe that modification of upstream license is terribly wrong.

+--- sl-modem-2.9.9d+e-pre2.orig/drivers/amrmo_init.c
++++ sl-modem-2.9.9d+e-pre2/drivers/amrmo_init.c
+@@ -692,7 +704,8 @@
+ 
+ MODULE_AUTHOR("Smart Link Ltd.");
+ MODULE_DESCRIPTION("SmartLink HAMR5600,SmartPCI56/561 based modem 
driver");
+-MODULE_LICENSE("Smart Link Ltd.");
++//MODULE_LICENSE("Smart Link Ltd.");
++MODULE_LICENSE("Dual BSD/GPL");
+ 

How can you justify this change?

I believe it is offensive to the linux kernel developers to circumvent 
the license exportation of the smartlink module in this manner.

drivers/amrlibs.o and modem/dsplibs.o are binary blobs. drivers/st7554.c 
(ST7554 USB Smart Link Soft Modem driver) depends on these binary blobs.

In recent linux kernel code, some advanced functions require a GPL 
compatible license, drivers/base/class.c:-

|****EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(class_create_file);
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(class_remove_file);
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(class_register);
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(class_unregister);
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(class_get);
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(class_put);
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(class_create);
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(class_destroy);

EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(class_device_register);
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(class_device_unregister);
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(class_device_initialize);
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(class_device_add);
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(class_device_del);
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(class_device_get);
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(class_device_put);
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(class_device_create);
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(class_device_destroy);
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(class_device_create_file);
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(class_device_remove_file);
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(class_device_create_bin_file);
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(class_device_remove_bin_file);

EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(class_interface_register);
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(class_interface_unregister);

The above mentioned modification of the Smartlink license circumvents 
this requirement.
**|
Thanks, Kel.
|

Message #10 received at 354216@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Eduard Bloch <edi@gmx.de>

To: Kel Modderman <kelrin@tpg.com.au>, 354216@bugs.debian.org

Cc: debian-legal@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#354216: upstream license patched in debian package

Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 14:55:34 +0100

#include <hallo.h>
* Kel Modderman [Fri, Feb 24 2006, 11:05:37PM]:
> Package: sl-modem-source
> Version: 2.9.9d+e-pre2-2
> |Severity: grave
> 
> +sl-modem (2.9.9d+e-pre2-1) unstable; urgency=low
> +
> +  * New upstream pre-release (closes: #327588)
> +  * added sv.po from Daniel Nylander (closes: #330436)
> +  * slmodemd.1 manpage from Erik Schanze (closes: #335369)
> +  * defining URB_ASYNC_UNLINK if not set, needed by recent kernels
> +  * applied patch for class/simple_class transition from Gentoo lists with
> +    some fixes (closes: #325799)
> +  * changed the MODULE_LICENSE string to "Dual BSD/GPL" since the license
> +    is actually a BSD license clone (closes: #327545)
...
> How can you justify this change?

I though I have written that above.

> I believe it is offensive to the linux kernel developers to circumvent 
> the license exportation of the smartlink module in this manner.

I believe something different. I believe it is quite offensive to the
Linux users when some kernel developers deliberately replace interfaces
with incompatible ones with strace access limitation. Looks similar to
tactics known from patenting interfaces and file formats.

> drivers/amrlibs.o and modem/dsplibs.o are binary blobs. drivers/st7554.c 
> (ST7554 USB Smart Link Soft Modem driver) depends on these binary blobs.

First: only on one of them, amrlibs.o. The other file just have been
forgoten in the driver source and will be removed, thanks for noticing.

Second: Yes, this is a non-GPLed driver which is to be loaded with the
Linux kernel. And?

> In recent linux kernel code, some advanced functions require a GPL 
> compatible license, drivers/base/class.c:-
> 
> |****EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(class_create_file);
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(class_remove_file);
...
> The above mentioned modification of the Smartlink license circumvents 
> this requirement.

I know, no need to teach me. But what are you trying to say? Or are you
just one of the anti-NON-GPL-drivers crusaders, trying to begin a new
battle?

Eduard.

-- 
Citizen G'Kar: I told you I could help. The book of G'Quan. Read it.  We'll
talk afterwards.
Michael Garibaldi: I don't read Narn.
Citizen G'Kar: Learn!
                                                 -- Quotes from Babylon 5 --

Message #15 received at 354216@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Alexander Terekhov" <alexander.terekhov@gmail.com>

To: "Eduard Bloch" <edi@gmx.de>

Cc: "Kel Modderman" <kelrin@tpg.com.au>, 354216@bugs.debian.org, debian-legal@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#354216: upstream license patched in debian package

Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 15:42:31 +0100

HACK_MODULE_INFO(LICENSE, GPL, "The licensing of this module is *NOT* \
GPL-Nazis' business. Oh and BTW, the GPL it is not... notwithstanding \
the presence of the string of data consisting of the letters 'G-P-L'. \
Inquiring Minds: see Sega v. Accolade and Lexmark v. Static Control.");

regards,
alexander.

Message #20 received at 354216@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Kel Modderman <kelrin@tpg.com.au>

To: Eduard Bloch <edi@gmx.de>

Cc: 354216@bugs.debian.org, debian-legal@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#354216: upstream license patched in debian package

Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 00:46:42 +1000

Eduard Bloch wrote:

>#include <hallo.h>
>* Kel Modderman [Fri, Feb 24 2006, 11:05:37PM]:
>  
>
>>Package: sl-modem-source
>>Version: 2.9.9d+e-pre2-2
>>|Severity: grave
>>
>>+sl-modem (2.9.9d+e-pre2-1) unstable; urgency=low
>>+
>>+  * New upstream pre-release (closes: #327588)
>>+  * added sv.po from Daniel Nylander (closes: #330436)
>>+  * slmodemd.1 manpage from Erik Schanze (closes: #335369)
>>+  * defining URB_ASYNC_UNLINK if not set, needed by recent kernels
>>+  * applied patch for class/simple_class transition from Gentoo lists with
>>+    some fixes (closes: #325799)
>>+  * changed the MODULE_LICENSE string to "Dual BSD/GPL" since the license
>>+    is actually a BSD license clone (closes: #327545)
>>    
>>
>...
>  
>
>>How can you justify this change?
>>    
>>
>
>I though I have written that above.
>  
>

Can you please clarify at all? What makes a license "clone" an 
interchangeable license, especially since you are the one responsible 
for the actual license change, and not "Smart Link Ltd."? What do they 
think about it? Is it your lawful right to change it? Please write a 
brief reason for the change, but a bit more informative than the reason 
stated in debian/changelog (#327545 revealed nothing).

>  
>
>>I believe it is offensive to the linux kernel developers to circumvent 
>>the license exportation of the smartlink module in this manner.
>>    
>>
>
>I believe something different. I believe it is quite offensive to the
>Linux users when some kernel developers deliberately replace interfaces
>with incompatible ones with strace access limitation. Looks similar to
>tactics known from patenting interfaces and file formats.
>  
>

Well, this will not be discussed further here, its been well thrashed by 
many others.

>  
>
>>drivers/amrlibs.o and modem/dsplibs.o are binary blobs. drivers/st7554.c 
>>(ST7554 USB Smart Link Soft Modem driver) depends on these binary blobs.
>>    
>>
>
>First: only on one of them, amrlibs.o. The other file just have been
>forgoten in the driver source and will be removed, thanks for noticing.
>
>Second: Yes, this is a non-GPLed driver which is to be loaded with the
>Linux kernel. And?
>
>  
>
>>In recent linux kernel code, some advanced functions require a GPL 
>>compatible license, drivers/base/class.c:-
>>
>>|****EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(class_create_file);
>>EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(class_remove_file);
>>    
>>
>...
>  
>
>>The above mentioned modification of the Smartlink license circumvents 
>>this requirement.
>>    
>>
>
>I know, no need to teach me. But what are you trying to say? Or are you
>just one of the anti-NON-GPL-drivers crusaders, trying to begin a new
>battle?
>  
>

Absolutely not. I am sorry you think I am taking the time to report what 
I honestly think to be a grave flaw because I want to bignote myself or 
prove a point. My primary and only concern is the integrity of the 
software debian users are provided. Is that o.k?

>Eduard.
>
>  
>
Thanks, Kel.

Message #25 received at 354216@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org>

To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org

Cc: 354216@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#354216: upstream license patched in debian package

Date: 24 Feb 2006 10:27:13 -0500

Kel Modderman writes:

> Can you please clarify at all? What makes a license "clone" an
> interchangeable license, especially since you are the one responsible
> for the actual license change, and not "Smart Link Ltd."? What do they
> think about it? Is it your lawful right to change it? Please write a
> brief reason for the change, but a bit more informative than the
> reason stated in debian/changelog (#327545 revealed nothing).

"Smart Link Ltd." describes a copyright owner, not a license.  As a
MODULE_LICENSE string, it is meaningless, and should be replaced with
an appropriate string.  Ideally the upstream author would do this, but
I see no harm in a Debian package doing it as long as the new string
remains accurate.  Are you suggesting that the module's license is in
fact not "Dual BSD/GPL"?

Michael Poole

Message #30 received at 354216@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Eduard Bloch <edi@gmx.de>

To: Kel Modderman <kelrin@tpg.com.au>, 354216@bugs.debian.org

Cc: debian-legal@lists.debian.org

Subject: changing upstream's MODULE_LICENSE string in module source

Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 16:35:39 +0100

#include <hallo.h>
* Kel Modderman [Sat, Feb 25 2006, 12:46:42AM]:
> Eduard Bloch wrote:

> >I though I have written that above.
> > 
> >
> 
> Can you please clarify at all? What makes a license "clone" an 

> interchangeable license, especially since you are the one responsible 
> for the actual license change, and not "Smart Link Ltd."? What do they 
> think about it? Is it your lawful right to change it? Please write a 
> brief reason for the change, but a bit more informative than the reason 
> stated in debian/changelog (#327545 revealed nothing).

Ehm... Sorry, would you please read the license you are talking about?
You did not even copy it to the report. 

As said in the changelog, the license is BSD license text with
/BSD/Smart Link Ltd./ substitution. Are you saying that phrases in the
BSD license have no power if used by somebody else?

All code is open source except of two object files, one that goes into
the executable program (implementing high level modem functions) and one
linked with the modem driver (implementing extra features like Fax
ability). The modem driver can be replaced with ALSA drivers if only PPP
functionality is needed.

So, your "Brief reason":
(though I think it is quite obvious and you simply force paper work to
attract attention on a non-issue)

The drivers do not load. They compile fine, but they do not load because
some kernel developers think that they must throw stones into way of
users (for whose sake?!).

I have set the MODULE_LICENSE string to "Dual BSD/GPL" because I
honestly think that this is appropriate in this case.
And after all: I did not change the license, I changed one line in the
source, so the Subject was incorrect.

However, I will follow the consens of the d-legal discussion. I would
even put an "#error Please change the MODULE_LICENSE string in this
file, otherwise it will not load with your kernel. Don't forget to send
a formal complaint to the kernel developers." into the .c file.

> >I know, no need to teach me. But what are you trying to say? Or are you
> >just one of the anti-NON-GPL-drivers crusaders, trying to begin a new
> >battle?
> > 
> >
> 
> Absolutely not. I am sorry you think I am taking the time to report what 
> I honestly think to be a grave flaw because I want to bignote myself or 
> prove a point. My primary and only concern is the integrity of the 
> software debian users are provided. Is that o.k?

Almost.

Eduard.
-- 
Kosh Naranek: A stroke of the brush does not guarantee art from the bristles.
                                                 -- Quotes from Babylon 5 --

Message #37 received at 354216@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Kel Modderman <kelrin@tpg.com.au>

To: Eduard Bloch <edi@gmx.de>

Cc: 354216@bugs.debian.org, debian-legal@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: changing upstream's MODULE_LICENSE string in module source

Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 10:15:11 +1000

Eduard Bloch wrote:

>#include <hallo.h>
>* Kel Modderman [Sat, Feb 25 2006, 12:46:42AM]:
>  
>
>>Eduard Bloch wrote:
>>    
>>
>
>  
>
>>>I though I have written that above.
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>Can you please clarify at all? What makes a license "clone" an 
>>    
>>
>
>  
>
>>interchangeable license, especially since you are the one responsible 
>>for the actual license change, and not "Smart Link Ltd."? What do they 
>>think about it? Is it your lawful right to change it? Please write a 
>>brief reason for the change, but a bit more informative than the reason 
>>stated in debian/changelog (#327545 revealed nothing).
>>    
>>
>
>Ehm... Sorry, would you please read the license you are talking about?
>You did not even copy it to the report. 
>  
>

slmodem-2.9.9e-pre1a/COPYING


/*
*
*    Copyright (c) 2001, Smart Link Ltd.
*    All rights reserved.
*
*    Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
*    modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
*    are met:
*
*        1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
*           notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
*        2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above
*           copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following
*           disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided
*           with the distribution.
*        3. Neither the name of the Smart Link Ltd. nor the names of its
*           contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived
*           from this software without specific prior written permission.
*
*    THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
*    "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
*    LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR
*    A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT
*    OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL,
*    SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT
*    LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE,
*    DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY
*    THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT
*    (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE
*    OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
*
*/



http://www.smlink.com/content.aspx?id=142 (LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR END USERS)

*Linux end useres*

*SMART LINK, LTD.*
*TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR END USERS DOWNLOADING DRIVERS FROM THE SMART 
LINK WEBSITE*
You MUST read the following terms and conditions of sale before you 
download any Software (as defined below) from the Smart Link ("Smart 
Link") website in order to upgrade your existing Product (as defined 
below). These terms and conditions constitute an agreement (the 
"Agreement") between Smart Link and end users ( "Buyer").
1. *ACCEPTANCE:* You must confirm you have read and agreed to these 
terms and conditions before you download the Product. BY CLICKING ON THE 
"YES" BUTTON, YOU ARE CONSENTING TO BE BOUND BY AND ARE BECOMING A PARTY 
TO THIS AGREEMENT. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO ALL THE TERMS OF THIS 
AGREEMENT, CLICK THE "NO" BUTTON.
2. *PRODUCT:* Smart Link's product herein, (the "Product") as specified 
on Smart Link's website www.smlink.com <http://www.smlink.com/> 
comprises Smart Link's software drivers (the "Software") which are 
available for download by the Buyer. There is a US version of the 
Software and an International version of the Software.
3. *LICENSE:* Smart Link hereby grants to Buyer a nonexclusive, 
nontransferable license to download the Software from Smart Link's 
website, free of charge, for the sole purpose of upgrading the Buyer's 
existing Product. The Software may only be used by the Buyer to upgrade 
the Buyer's existing version of the Product and may not be used with any 
other product not provided by Smart Link. This license shall not include 
the right to otherwise sell or sub-license the Software.
4 *TERRITORIAL RESTRICTION ON LICENSE:* Buyer shall use the 
International version of the Software solely in jurisdictions outside of 
the United States of America. Buyer agrees not to use the International 
version of the Software in the United States of America.
5. *SOFTWARE TERMS:*
Title to the Software: Buyer acknowledges that Smart Link is the owner 
of all rights, title, and interest, including all trademarks, copyrights 
to all of the documentation and computer-recorded data comprising or 
included in the Software, documentation and source code relating 
thereto. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, this Agreement 
does not grant Buyer, or any of its sub-licensees any title or rights of 
ownership in the Software.
Restrictions: BUYER MAY NOT REVERSE ENGINEER, DECOMPILE, DISASSEMBLE OR 
OTHERWISE REDUCE THE SOFTWARE TO ANY HUMAN OR MACHINE PERCEIVABLE FORM. 
BUYER MAY NOT MODIFY, ADAPT, TRANSLATE, RENT, LEASE, LOAN OR CREATE 
DERIVATIVE WORKS BASED UPON THE SOFTWARE OR ANY PART THEREOF.
Compliance: There is a US version and non-US version of the Software, if 
the Buyer uses the US version of the Software the Buyer agrees to use 
the US version of the Software in compliance with the Federal 
Communication Commission Regulations.
Intellectual Property Notices: Buyer agrees that all copyright and other 
proprietary notices which are embedded in the Software, or set forth in 
accompanying documentation, delivered to Buyer hereunder shall remain as 
embedded, in the same manner as embedded by Smart Link, in each copy of 
the Software and/or documentation.
6. *DISCLAIMER:*
SMART LINK IS PROVIDING THE SOFTWARE ON AN "AS IS" BASIS AND MAKES NO 
REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, 
WITH RESPECT TO THE SOFTWARE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION THE IMPLIED 
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND 
NON-INFRINGMENT. SMART LINK DOES NOT WARRANT THAT THE OPERATION OF THE 
PRODUCT WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR ERROR-FREE OR THE SERVER THAT MAKES IT 
AVAILABLE IS FREE OF VIRUSES OR OTHER HARMFUL COMPONENTS. IT IS THE 
BUYER'S SOLE RESPONSIBILITY TO EXECUTE ANTI-CONTAMINATION SOFTWARE AND 
OTHERWISE TAKE STEPS TO ENSURE THAT THE SOFTWARE IF CONTAMINATED OR 
INFECTED, WILL NOT DAMAGE THE PRODUCT OR THE BUYERS SYSTEM.
7. *LIMITATION OF REMEDIES AND DAMAGES:* Buyer's sole remedies and Smart 
Link's entire liability are as set forth above. In no event shall Smart 
Link or any of the licensors, directors, officers, employees or 
affiliates of the foregoing be liable to Buyer for any direct, indirect, 
consequential, incidental, special or similar damages whatsoever 
(including, without limitation, damages for loss of business profits, 
business interruption, loss of business information and the like), 
whether foreseeable or unforeseeable, arising out of the use or 
inability to use the Software, regardless of the basis of the claim and 
even if Smart Link or a Smart Link representative has been advised of 
the possibility of such damage. SOME JURISDICTIONS MAY NOT ALLOW THE 
LIMITATION OR EXCLUSION OF INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES FOR 
CONSUMER PRODUCTS, SO THE ABOVE LIMITATIONS OR EXCLUSIONS MAY NOT APPLY 
TO BUYER.
8. *SOFTWARE CHANGES:* Smart Link shall have the right, in its sole 
discretion, without liability to Buyer, to (a) change the design, or 
discontinue developing, producing, licensing or distributing any 
Software covered by this Agreement, and (b) announce new Software to 
which the terms and conditions of this Agreement do not apply.
9. *U.S. GOVERNMENT END USERS:* This provision applies to all Software 
acquired directly or indirectly by or on behalf of the United States 
Government. The Software is a "commercial item," as that term is defined 
at 48 C.F.R. 2.101 (OCT 1995), consisting, in part, of "commercial 
computer software" and "commercial computer documentation," as such 
terms are used in 48 C.F.R. 12.212 (SEPT 1995). Consistent with 48 
C.F.R. 12.212 and 48 C.F.R. 227.7202-1 through 227.7202-4 (JUNE 1995), 
In the event that Buyer receives a request from any agency of the U.S. 
Government to provide the Software with rights beyond those set forth 
above, Buyer will notify Smart Link of the scope of rights requested and 
the agency making such request and Smart Link will have ten (10) 
business days to, in its sole discretion, accept or reject such request; 
provided, that Smart Link's failure to respond during such time period 
shall be deemed a rejection.
10. *GENERAL:* These terms and conditions shall constitute the final, 
complete and exclusive agreement of the parties with respect to all 
downloads of the Sofware by Buyer and shall supersede all prior offers, 
negotiations, understandings and agreements. It is expressly agreed that 
no prior or contemporaneous agreement or understanding, whether written 
or oral, shall contradict, modify, supplement or explain the terms and 
conditions contained herein. No additional or different terms or 
conditions, whether material or immaterial, shall become a part of any 
agreement unless expressly accepted in writing by an authorized officer 
of Smart Link. Any waiver by Smart Link of one or more of these terms 
and conditions or any defaults hereunder shall not constitute a waiver 
of the remaining terms and conditions or of any future defaults 
hereunder. No failure or delay by either party in exercising or 
enforcing any right hereunder shall operate as a waiver thereof or 
preclude any other exercise or enforcement of rights hereunder. Any 
provision of these terms and conditions that is prohibited or 
unenforceable under applicable law shall be ineffective to the extent of 
such prohibition or unenforceability, without impairing or invalidating 
the remaining provisions of these terms and conditions. The terms and 
performance of this Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State 
of Israel. The venue for any disputes arising out of any sales agreement 
shall be, at Smart Link's sole and exclusive option, Tel-Aviv, Israel or 
the courts with proper jurisdiction at Buyer's location.
*DO YOU ACCEPT THE TERMS OF OUR LICENSE AGREEMENT?*

This part in particular:-

Intellectual Property Notices: Buyer agrees that all copyright and other 
proprietary notices which are embedded in the Software, or set forth in 
accompanying documentation, delivered to Buyer hereunder shall remain as 
embedded, in the same manner as embedded by Smart Link, in each copy of 
the Software and/or documentation.

>As said in the changelog, the license is BSD license text with
>/BSD/Smart Link Ltd./ substitution. Are you saying that phrases in the
>BSD license have no power if used by somebody else?
>
>All code is open source except of two object files, one that goes into
>the executable program (implementing high level modem functions) and one
>linked with the modem driver (implementing extra features like Fax
>ability). The modem driver can be replaced with ALSA drivers if only PPP
>functionality is needed.
>
>So, your "Brief reason":
>(though I think it is quite obvious and you simply force paper work to
>attract attention on a non-issue)
>
>The drivers do not load. They compile fine, but they do not load because
>some kernel developers think that they must throw stones into way of
>users (for whose sake?!).
>  
>

Your opinion of what the kernel's code means to end users of modules 
with non-gpl compat. licenses has no relevance in this matter, and does 
not justify the change to MODULE_LICENSE.

>I have set the MODULE_LICENSE string to "Dual BSD/GPL" because I
>honestly think that this is appropriate in this case.
>  
>

But do Smart Link Ltd. agree with your changes? That is the question . . .

>And after all: I did not change the license, I changed one line in the
>source, so the Subject was incorrect.
>  
>
Subject: changing upstream's MODULE_LICENSE string in module source

>However, I will follow the consens of the d-legal discussion. I would
>even put an "#error Please change the MODULE_LICENSE string in this
>file, otherwise it will not load with your kernel. Don't forget to send
>a formal complaint to the kernel developers." into the .c file.
>
>  
>
>>>I know, no need to teach me. But what are you trying to say? Or are you
>>>just one of the anti-NON-GPL-drivers crusaders, trying to begin a new
>>>battle?
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>Absolutely not. I am sorry you think I am taking the time to report what 
>>I honestly think to be a grave flaw because I want to bignote myself or 
>>prove a point. My primary and only concern is the integrity of the 
>>software debian users are provided. Is that o.k?
>>    
>>
>
>Almost.
>  
>

?

Kel.

Message #42 received at 354216@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: md@Linux.IT (Marco d'Itri)

To: Eduard Bloch <edi@gmx.de>

Cc: Kel Modderman <kelrin@tpg.com.au>, 354216@bugs.debian.org, debian-legal@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#354216: upstream license patched in debian package

Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 18:26:31 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Feb 24, Eduard Bloch <edi@gmx.de> wrote:

> I know, no need to teach me. But what are you trying to say? Or are you
That your change is a deliberate DMCA violation ("circumvention of
technological measures").

-- 
ciao,
Marco

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #47 received at 354216@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Eduard Bloch <edi@gmx.de>

To: Kel Modderman <kelrin@tpg.com.au>

Cc: 354216@bugs.debian.org, debian-legal@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: changing upstream's MODULE_LICENSE string in module source

Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 20:32:01 +0100

#include <hallo.h>
* Kel Modderman [Sat, Feb 25 2006, 10:15:11AM]:

> >Ehm... Sorry, would you please read the license you are talking about?
> >You did not even copy it to the report. 
> > 
> >
> 
> slmodem-2.9.9e-pre1a/COPYING
> 
> 
> /*
> *
> *    Copyright (c) 2001, Smart Link Ltd.
> *    All rights reserved.
> *
> *    Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
> *    modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
> *    are met:
...
> http://www.smlink.com/content.aspx?id=142 (LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR END USERS)
> 
> *Linux end useres*

Like previously you qoute stuff without checking the context. Here you
forget the fourth dimension (time). So, a short summary for those who
care about history (maybe imperfect, too much time passed and too weak
memory):

<=2.7.x: the package is distributed via SmartLink's software pool
without restrictions. Mirrored by Linmodems people. Pure kernelspace
implementation.
2.8.x: support for OEM models becomes limited. People are forced to
agree with some disclaimer on the website. Package is still available in
their software pool and is mirrored by the Linmodems people.
2.9.1..2.9.5: package is split into a kernel module and a software
daemon
2.9.6..2.9.9 (08/2004): support for ALSA instead of the kernel module, sufficient for
doing PPP. Mirrored by Linmodems people.

Now the "fun" begins. Apparently SmartLink begins to terminate their
modem business. Version 2.9.10 (with few changes) appears on their
website with the new crappy license you mentioned.

For some months Linmodems distribute 2.9.9x versions, based on original
2.9.9 plus modifications. In 2005's fall, slmodemd-2.9.11_20051009
appears on Linmodems' site, and it was unclear to me where exactly it
comes from. So Debian package still is at 2.9.9 plus minor fixes from
the mentioned 2.9.9x series. In the meantime, I got the information that
this 2.9.11-<date> versions have been derived from an internal work
snapshot, created directly before the 2.9.10 release.

I know that Kannotix guys took one of that 2.9.11 tarballs to
create their version of sl-modem packages. Fine. I am not ready to do
that in Debian without having real evidence that the export of that
source happened with permission of SmartLink Ltd., the stuff is just too
hot.

> This part in particular:-
> 
> Intellectual Property Notices: Buyer agrees that all copyright and other 

Hehe. I have already used that license for NM checks once ;-)

> >The drivers do not load. They compile fine, but they do not load because
> >some kernel developers think that they must throw stones into way of
> >users (for whose sake?!).
> > 
> >
> 
> Your opinion of what the kernel's code means to end users of modules 
> with non-gpl compat. licenses has no relevance in this matter, and does 
> not justify the change to MODULE_LICENSE.

As said, I will undo that change as soon as enough unbiased opinions
exist.  Md raised his voice and he has a point, though a DMCA-threat in
GPL context looks slightly absurd.

> >I have set the MODULE_LICENSE string to "Dual BSD/GPL" because I
> >honestly think that this is appropriate in this case.
> > 
> >
> 
> But do Smart Link Ltd. agree with your changes? That is the question . . .

Remember the old license, covering _this_ version?

Anyway, for now I will take amrmo_init.c from that 2.9.11 tarball. It
is basically the one from 2.9.9 but instead of fixing the sysfs-class
functionality (what our patch did) it just disables it completely (and
has some new modem ids). Not the finest solution but should appease most
people.

Eduard.

-- 
Captain John Sheridan: Bester.
PsiCop Alfred Bester: Captain Sheridan.
Captain John Sheridan: Get the hell out of my chair.
                                                 -- Quotes from Babylon 5 --

Message #52 received at 354216-close@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Eduard Bloch <blade@debian.org>

To: 354216-close@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Bug#354216: fixed in sl-modem 2.9.9d+e-pre2-4

Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 11:47:10 -0800

Source: sl-modem
Source-Version: 2.9.9d+e-pre2-4

We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of
sl-modem, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive:

sl-modem-daemon_2.9.9d+e-pre2-4_i386.deb
  to pool/non-free/s/sl-modem/sl-modem-daemon_2.9.9d+e-pre2-4_i386.deb
sl-modem-source_2.9.9d+e-pre2-4_i386.deb
  to pool/non-free/s/sl-modem/sl-modem-source_2.9.9d+e-pre2-4_i386.deb
sl-modem_2.9.9d+e-pre2-4.diff.gz
  to pool/non-free/s/sl-modem/sl-modem_2.9.9d+e-pre2-4.diff.gz
sl-modem_2.9.9d+e-pre2-4.dsc
  to pool/non-free/s/sl-modem/sl-modem_2.9.9d+e-pre2-4.dsc



A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is
attached.

Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed.  If you
have further comments please address them to 354216@bugs.debian.org,
and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate.

Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Eduard Bloch <blade@debian.org> (supplier of updated sl-modem package)

(This message was generated automatically at their request; if you
believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive
administrators by mailing ftpmaster@debian.org)


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Format: 1.7
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 19:45:42 +0100
Source: sl-modem
Binary: sl-modem-daemon sl-modem-source
Architecture: source i386
Version: 2.9.9d+e-pre2-4
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: medium
Maintainer: Eduard Bloch <blade@debian.org>
Changed-By: Eduard Bloch <blade@debian.org>
Description: 
 sl-modem-daemon - SmartLink software modem daemon
 sl-modem-source - SmartLink software modem driver - module building source
Closes: 354216
Changes: 
 sl-modem (2.9.9d+e-pre2-4) unstable; urgency=medium
 .
   * replaced amrmo_init.c with the version from
     http://linmodems.technion.ac.il/packages/smartlink/slmodem-2.9.11-20051101.tar.gz
     which has basically the superset of our changes (plus two additional modem
     IDs) but zeroes out the class* method calls since they are "protected" by
     GPL-enforcing kernel macros now (closes: #354216)
   * the above change effectively disables the udev functionality. Send your
     complaints to kernel developers if you need it. Or suggest a better
     solution. For now, a oneliner in /etc/modprobe.d/sl-modem-daemon.modutils
     creates /dev/slamr0.
   * workaround to fix device files that got the wrong owner (660 instead of
     root) during the major number transition in July 2005
Files: 
 5bcccd83faae7c446863ab13d8ae1824 645 non-free/misc optional sl-modem_2.9.9d+e-pre2-4.dsc
 feedd12d6f4198602194ffe6469b7d2b 21941 non-free/misc optional sl-modem_2.9.9d+e-pre2-4.diff.gz
 40584296c7a7d1ba64e28ca4197fa5fc 217370 non-free/misc optional sl-modem-source_2.9.9d+e-pre2-4_i386.deb
 79f7014ecdedf12077e86dc795044d5d 508458 non-free/misc optional sl-modem-daemon_2.9.9d+e-pre2-4_i386.deb

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFEALDJ4QZIHu3wCMURAlahAJ4osc2HIRXMMJ8qfmIs5afUXxQsvgCfVgs5
VrFdcpW8UaFTHesMDluT48I=
=PU3F
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Message #57 received at 354216@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Alexander Terekhov" <alexander.terekhov@gmail.com>

To: md@linux.it, "Eduard Bloch" <edi@gmx.de>, "Kel Modderman" <kelrin@tpg.com.au>, 354216@bugs.debian.org, debian-legal@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#354216: upstream license patched in debian package

Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 21:36:12 +0100

On 2/25/06, Marco d'Itri <md@linux.it> wrote:
> On Feb 24, Eduard Bloch <edi@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> > I know, no need to teach me. But what are you trying to say? Or are you
> That your change is a deliberate DMCA violation ("circumvention of
> technological measures").

http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/Lexmark_v_Static_Control/20041026_Ruling.pdf

Stupid.

regards,
alexander.

Message #60 received at 354216@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Don Armstrong <don@debian.org>

To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org, 354216@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: changing upstream's MODULE_LICENSE string in module source

Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 12:55:18 -0800

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006, Eduard Bloch wrote:

> The drivers do not load. They compile fine, but they do not load
> because some kernel developers think that they must throw stones
> into way of users (for whose sake?!).
> 
> I have set the MODULE_LICENSE string to "Dual BSD/GPL" because I
> honestly think that this is appropriate in this case. And after all:
> I did not change the license, I changed one line in the source, so
> the Subject was incorrect.

It seems clear that the license in the source is BSD, with the
exception of patches/alsa-linux-2.6.0.patch and
ungrab-winmodem/ungrab-winmodem.c which are GPLed.

From this, it seems that claiming that it's dual licensed under the
BSD and GPL seems improper, it should be something like BSD+GPL or
similar. [I have no idea how to express this in the MODULE_LICENSE
format, but whatever is closest is probably the right way forward.]

Next, the presence of the binary blobs, if they're actually needed,
preclued this work from being compatible with the GPL. If we assume
that the combination of this work with a GPL forms a derived work
based on the GPLed one, that should preclude the casual linking of the
work with the kernel. (Obviously, these binary blobs don't cause any
problem with the BSD part of the module.)

If these binary blobs aren't actually needed, then it would probably
be ideal to expunge them from the tarball so that this work can be
distributed in main instead of non-free.

Finally, it appears that we do not have permission to distribute the
Makefile in this module, which is probably more damaging than the
MODULE_LICENSE issue:

#       Makefile  --  modem Makefile.
#
#       Copyright(c) 2003, Smart Link Ltd. (www.smlink.com)
#       All rights reserved.
#
#       Author: Sasha K (sashak@smlink.com)

[Unless it seems clear that the COPYING file was meant to cover this
also... but since they've labeled all the other files properly, that
seems to be a bit more difficult of a case to make.]

As a parting note, it's unclear to me if the MODULE_LICENSE actually
matters as far as the presumed license state of the code goes. It's
clearly not a valid copyright statement, licensing statment, or a
modification of one, so I don't see why you couldn't just put
MODULE_LICENSE("jelly donut"), chagrin of kernel contributors
notwithstanding.


Don Armstrong

-- 
It has always been Debian's philosophy in the past to stick to what
makes sense, regardless of what crack the rest of the universe is
smoking.
 -- Andrew Suffield in 20030403211305.GD29698@doc.ic.ac.uk

http://www.donarmstrong.com              http://rzlab.ucr.edu

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #65 received at 354216@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Alexander Terekhov" <alexander.terekhov@gmail.com>

To: "Eduard Bloch" <edi@gmx.de>

Cc: "Kel Modderman" <kelrin@tpg.com.au>, 354216@bugs.debian.org, debian-legal@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: changing upstream's MODULE_LICENSE string in module source

Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 22:06:11 +0100

On 2/25/06, Eduard Bloch <edi@gmx.de> wrote:
[...]
> exist.  Md raised his voice and he has a point, though a DMCA-threat in
> GPL context looks slightly absurd.

Slightly?!

-----
The authentication sequence, it is true, may well block one form of
"access"—the "ability to . . . make use of" the Printer Engine Program
by preventing the printer from functioning. But it does not block
another relevant form of "access"—the "ability to [ ] obtain" a copy
of the work or to "make use of" the literal elements of the program
(its code). Because the statute refers to "control[ling] access to a
work protected under this title," it does not naturally apply when the
"work protected under this title" is otherwise accessible. Just as one
would not say that a lock on the back door of a house "controls
access" to a house whose front door does not contain a lock and just
as one would not say that a lock on any door of a house "controls
access" to the house after its purchaser receives the key to the lock,
it does not make sense to say that this provision of the DMCA applies
to otherwise-readily-accessible copyrighted works.

[...]

In the essential setting where the DMCA applies, the copyright
protection operates on two planes: in the literal code governing the
work and in the visual or audio manifestation generated by the code's
execution. For example, the encoded data on CDs translates into music
and on DVDs into motion pictures, while the program commands in
software for video games or computers translate into some other visual
and audio manifestation. In the cases upon which Lexmark relies,
restricting "use" of the work means restricting consumers from making
use of the copyrightable expression in the work. See 321 Studios, 307
F. Supp. 2d at 1095 (movies contained on DVDs protected by an
encryption algorithm cannot be watched without a player that contains
an access key); Reimerdes, 111 F. Supp. 2d at 303 (same); Gamemasters,
87 F. Supp. 2d at 981 (Sony's game console prevented operation of
unauthorized video games). As shown above, the DMCA applies in these
settings when the product manufacturer prevents all access to the
copyrightable material and the alleged infringer responds by marketing
a device that circumvents the technological measure designed to guard
access to the copyrightable material.

The copyrightable expression in the Printer Engine Program, by
contrast, operates on only one plane: in the literal elements of the
program, its source and object code. Unlike the code underlying video
games or DVDs, "using" or executing the Printer Engine Program does
not in turn create any protected expression. Instead, the program's
output is purely functional: the Printer Engine Program "controls a
number of operations" in the Lexmark printer such as "paper feed[,]
paper movement[,] [and] motor control." Lexmark Br. at 9; cf. Lotus
Dev., 49 F.3d at 815 (determining that menu command hierarchy is an
uncopyrightable method of operation"). And unlike the code underlying
video games or DVDs, no encryption or other technological measure
prevents access to the Printer Engine Program. Presumably, it is
precisely because the Printer Engine Program is not a conduit to
protectable expression that explains why Lexmark (or any other printer
company) would not block access to the computer software that makes
the printer work. Because Lexmark's authentication sequence does not
restrict access to this literal code, the DMCA does not apply.

[...]

But our reasoning does not turn on the degree to which a measure
controls access to a work. It turns on the textual requirement that
the challenged circumvention device must indeed circumvent something,
which did not happen with the Printer Engine Program. Because Lexmark
has not directed any of its security efforts, through its
authentication sequence or otherwise, to ensuring that its copyrighted
work (the Printer Engine Program) cannot be read and copied, it cannot
lay claim to having put in place a "technological measure that
effectively controls access to a work protected under [the copyright
statute]." 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(2)(B).

Nor can Lexmark tenably claim that this reading of the statute fails
to respect Congress's purpose in enacting it. Congress enacted the
DMCA to implement the Copyright Treaty of the World Intellectual
Property Organization, and in doing so expressed concerns about the
threat of "massive piracy" of digital works due to "the ease with
which [they] can be copied and distributed worldwide virtually
instantaneously." S. Rep. No. 105-190, at 8 (1998). As Congress saw
it, "copyrighted works will most likely be encrypted and made
available to consumers once payment is made for access to a copy of
the work. [People] will try to profit from the works of others by
decoding the encrypted codes protecting  copyrighted works, or
engaging in the business of providing devices or services to enable
others to do so." H.R. Rep. No. 105-551, pt. 1, at 10. Backing with
legal sanctions "the efforts of copyright owners to protect their
works from piracy behind digital walls such as encryption codes or
password protections," Corley, 273 F.3d at 435, Congress noted, would
encourage copyright owners to make digital works more readily
available, see S. Rep. No. 105-190, at 8. See also Nimmer §
12A.02[B][1].

Nowhere in its deliberations over the DMCA did Congress express an
interest in creating liability for the circumvention of technological
measures designed to prevent consumers from using consumer goods while
leaving the copyrightable content of a work unprotected. In fact,
Congress added the interoperability provision in part to ensure that
the DMCA would not diminish the benefit to consumers of interoperable
devices
-----

regards,
alexander.

Message #70 received at 354216@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Eduard Bloch <edi@gmx.de>

To: Alexander Terekhov <alexander.terekhov@gmail.com>

Cc: Kel Modderman <kelrin@tpg.com.au>, 354216@bugs.debian.org, debian-legal@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: changing upstream's MODULE_LICENSE string in module source

Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 22:16:06 +0100

#include <hallo.h>
* Alexander Terekhov [Sat, Feb 25 2006, 10:06:11PM]:
> On 2/25/06, Eduard Bloch <edi@gmx.de> wrote:
> [...]
> > exist.  Md raised his voice and he has a point, though a DMCA-threat in
> > GPL context looks slightly absurd.
> 
> Slightly?!
> 
> -----
> The authentication sequence, it is true, may well block one form of
> "access"—the "ability to . . . make use of" the Printer Engine Program

No time to parse that, summary please.

Thanks,
Eduard.

-- 
<linSux> ohje mit meiner bash stimmt scheinbar etwas nicht:-(
<linSux> linSux: ps aux | grep samba
<linSux> bash: linSux:: command not found

Message #75 received at 354216@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Alexander Terekhov" <alexander.terekhov@gmail.com>

To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org, 354216@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: changing upstream's MODULE_LICENSE string in module source

Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 22:55:26 +0100

On 2/25/06, Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> wrote:
[...]
> Next, the presence of the binary blobs, if they're actually needed,
> preclued this work from being compatible with the GPL.

Sez who?

The last I heard Moglen "freed" blobs. The Prof in GNU Law declared
them to be fully resistant to the General Public Virus even in his
totally perverse alternative reality where linking magically converts
"proprietary" object code into GPL'd source code.

> If we assume
> that the combination of this work with a GPL forms a derived work

A combination is a compilation, not a derivative work. So full stop.

regards,
alexander.

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.