Subject: Package could be non-free in the United Kingdom
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 11:16:13 +0100
Package: bible-kjv-text
Severity: normal
Hello,
I was browsing Wikipedia after visiting a special exibition about the
history of the Bible in the United Kingdom and I stumbled on this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version#Copyright_status
"The terms of the letters patent prohibit those other than the
holders, or those authorized by the holders from printing, publishing
or importing the Authorized Version into the United Kingdom."
Since I'm not at all familiar with the legacy of copyright laws around
the British Royal Family, I'm setting the severity to normal, using
'could' in the subject and Cc-ing debian-devel. But I thought the issue
was worth raising.
Ciao,
Enrico
-- System Information:
Debian Release: lenny/sid
APT prefers testing
APT policy: (500, 'testing')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.22-2-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=it_IT.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=it_IT.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 11:16:13AM +0100, Enrico Zini wrote:
> Since I'm not at all familiar with the legacy of copyright laws around
> the British Royal Family, I'm setting the severity to normal, using
> 'could' in the subject and Cc-ing debian-devel. But I thought the issue
> was worth raising.
I've been told in #debian-devel that this has been reported before:
http://bugs.debian.org/338077
The discussion didn't seem to reach a conclusive argument, and seemed to
have been closed somehow because of that:
Tags set to: unreproducible, fixed Request was from MJ Ray <[email protected]> to [email protected]. Full text and rfc822 format available.
Probably this bug should be merged with 338077.
Could contacting http://www.opsi.gov.uk/about/contact-us/index.htm or
http://www.tso.co.uk/contact/ be a good idea to get the information
that was missing in the previous discussion?
Ciao,
Enrico
--
GPG key: 1024D/797EBFAB 2000-12-05 Enrico Zini <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Bug#447712: Package could be non-free in the United Kingdom
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 12:35:20 +0100
Hi,
On 23 Oct 2007, at 11:52, Enrico Zini wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 11:16:13AM +0100, Enrico Zini wrote:
>
>> Since I'm not at all familiar with the legacy of copyright laws
>> around
>> the British Royal Family, I'm setting the severity to normal, using
>> 'could' in the subject and Cc-ing debian-devel. But I thought the
>> issue
>> was worth raising.
[it may be worth noting that I am "upstream" for this package, as
well as Debian maintainer]
The Authorized Version of the Bible isn't covered by Copyright in the
conventional sense. The Queen's Printer (currently Cambridge
University Press) has an exclusive commercial right to print the AV
(and the BCP, but that's not relevant here) in England; the
University Presses of Cambridge and Oxford University separately have
the privilege to print the Bible[1]; Collins are probably not meant
to print and sell Bibles in England, but no action has been taken
against them. It's not at all clear whether electronic copies are
covered.
Matthew
[1] http://www.btinternet.com/~akme/75cass1b.html
--
Matthew Vernon MA VetMB LGSM MRCVS
Farm Animal Epidemiology and Informatics Unit
Department of Veterinary Medicine, University of Cambridge
http://www.cus.cam.ac.uk/~mcv21/
Hi,
if I can't print and sell it in England (and some other commonwealth
countries), it doesnt seem it should be in main. It's probably fine for
nonfree though.
regards,
Holger
Subject: Re: Bug#447712: Package could be non-free in the United Kingdom
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 17:04:52 +0300
ti, 2007-10-23 kello 12:35 +0100, Matthew Vernon kirjoitti:
> The Authorized Version of the Bible isn't covered by Copyright in
> the
> conventional sense. The Queen's Printer (currently Cambridge
> University Press) has an exclusive commercial right to print the AV
> (and the BCP, but that's not relevant here) in England
Would not a restriction on commercial use still be against the DFSG, and
the package therefore be problematic?
--
Fundamental truth #4: Typing URLs always introduces errors. Always copy
+paste.
Subject: Re: Bug#447712: Package could be non-free in the United Kingdom
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 15:36:09 +0100
On 23 Oct 2007, at 15:04, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> ti, 2007-10-23 kello 12:35 +0100, Matthew Vernon kirjoitti:
>> The Authorized Version of the Bible isn't covered by Copyright in
>> the
>> conventional sense. The Queen's Printer (currently Cambridge
>> University Press) has an exclusive commercial right to print the AV
>> (and the BCP, but that's not relevant here) in England
>
> Would not a restriction on commercial use still be against the
> DFSG, and
> the package therefore be problematic?
It's not quite that simple. You can't print and sell Bibles in the UK
(unless you are CUP or OUP). Would a bomb-making text in Debian be
non-free because the UK forbids you to print and sell it?
Matthew
--
Matthew Vernon MA VetMB LGSM MRCVS
Farm Animal Epidemiology and Informatics Unit
Department of Veterinary Medicine, University of Cambridge
http://www.cus.cam.ac.uk/~mcv21/
Subject: Re: Bug#447712: Package could be non-free in the United Kingdom
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 09:44:51 -0500
On 23-Oct-07, 09:04 (CDT), Lars Wirzenius <[email protected]> wrote:
> ti, 2007-10-23 kello 12:35 +0100, Matthew Vernon kirjoitti:
> > The Authorized Version of the Bible isn't covered by Copyright in
> > the
> > conventional sense. The Queen's Printer (currently Cambridge
> > University Press) has an exclusive commercial right to print the AV
> > (and the BCP, but that's not relevant here) in England
>
> Would not a restriction on commercial use still be against the DFSG, and
> the package therefore be problematic?
But the license on the package itself doesn't make that restriction.
Mere local law shouldn't make a package DFSG non-free. I'd bet there are
many packages in Debian whose distribution or use violates local law
somewhere in the world.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the
world. -- seen on the net
On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 09:44:51AM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
>
> But the license on the package itself doesn't make that restriction.
> Mere local law shouldn't make a package DFSG non-free. I'd bet there are
> many packages in Debian whose distribution or use violates local law
> somewhere in the world.
>
Good point. There are probably some clipart packages (or icons in some
packages) that show images which would be considered objectionable or in
violation of some local law somewhere (think of some Muslim countries
and the files in /usr/share/openclipart/png/food/beverages/alcohol/*).
Regards,
-Roberto
--
Roberto C. Sánchez
http://people.connexer.com/~robertohttp://www.connexer.com
Subject: Re: Bug#447712: Package could be non-free in the United Kingdom
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 18:35:21 +0300
ti, 2007-10-23 kello 09:44 -0500, Steve Greenland kirjoitti:
> But the license on the package itself doesn't make that restriction.
If I have understood things correctly, in England (and the rest of the
UK?) the copyright is owned by the crown and therefore it is the crown
that sets the license. In the rest of the world, the work is in the
public ___domain. This is, to me, a different thing than local law saying,
for instance, that the Bible as a work is banned.
But don't trust me on this, I am merely speculating.
--
That which does not kill us makes us stranger
On Tuesday 23 October 2007, Steve Greenland wrote:
> Mere local law shouldn't make a package DFSG non-free. I'd bet there are
> many packages in Debian whose distribution or use violates local law
> somewhere in the world.
Just a tiny example: I guess, Debian still contains many packages that contain
software that might be considered "hacker tools" in German courts and thus
might be forbidden under German law:
http://www.heise-security.co.uk/news/90255
[...] It becomes an offence to create, sell, distribute or even aquire so
called Hacker Tools that are built to conduct criminal acts like aquiring
illegal access to protected data. It is feared by many that this might keep
administrators and security experts from doing their job – i.e. from properly
testing applications or networks to enhance security while on the other hand
the blackhats don't really care that their choosen tool has been made illegal
now. [...]
Isabel
--
Heisenberg might have been here.
|\ _,,,---,,_ Web: <http://www.isabel-drost.de>
/,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_
|,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-'
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) (fL) IM: <xmpp://[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Bug#447712: Package could be non-free in the United Kingdom
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 14:42:44 -0500
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 10/23/07 09:36, Matthew Vernon wrote:
>
> On 23 Oct 2007, at 15:04, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
>
>> ti, 2007-10-23 kello 12:35 +0100, Matthew Vernon kirjoitti:
>>> The Authorized Version of the Bible isn't covered by Copyright in
>>> the
>>> conventional sense. The Queen's Printer (currently Cambridge
>>> University Press) has an exclusive commercial right to print the AV
>>> (and the BCP, but that's not relevant here) in England
>>
>> Would not a restriction on commercial use still be against the DFSG, and
>> the package therefore be problematic?
>
> It's not quite that simple. You can't print and sell Bibles in the UK
> (unless you are CUP or OUP). Would a bomb-making text in Debian be
> non-free because the UK forbids you to print and sell it?
Importantly (maybe?), the right is to *print* the AV. Is there a
mention, or assumption, that downloading as electronic file is the
same as printing it?
- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA
Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHHk60S9HxQb37XmcRAjy5AKCDm1TSPXvrzRVNXIgTuMMcw3QOOACffnYG
GxC4x7TCKTABf6BCxX0c40U=
=83UA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Subject: Re: Bug#447712: Package could be non-free in the United Kingdom
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 22:06:22 +0200
Isabel Drost wrote:
> On Tuesday 23 October 2007, Steve Greenland wrote:
>> Mere local law shouldn't make a package DFSG non-free. I'd bet there are
>> many packages in Debian whose distribution or use violates local law
>> somewhere in the world.
>
> Just a tiny example: I guess, Debian still contains many packages that contain
> software that might be considered "hacker tools" in German courts and thus
> might be forbidden under German law:
... as long as most of those tools are also contained on a CD which is
distributed by the BSI[1], I wouldn't think much about taking any action
here in Germany....
Cheers,
Bernd
[1]: http://www.bsi.de/produkte/boss/index.htm
--
Bernd Zeimetz
<[email protected]> <http://bzed.de/>
On Tue, 2007-10-23 at 17:04 +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> ti, 2007-10-23 kello 12:35 +0100, Matthew Vernon kirjoitti:
> > The Authorized Version of the Bible isn't covered by Copyright in
> > the
> > conventional sense. The Queen's Printer (currently Cambridge
> > University Press) has an exclusive commercial right to print the AV
> > (and the BCP, but that's not relevant here) in England
>
> Would not a restriction on commercial use still be against the DFSG, and
> the package therefore be problematic?
Not to mention the dire sanctions against derivative works of the
Revelation (from chapter 22):
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of
this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the
plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this
prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the
holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
Life is like a sewer:
what you get out of it depends on what you put into it.
Subject: Re: Bug#447712: Package could be non-free in the United Kingdom
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 10:42:34 +0000
Lars Wirzenius <[email protected]> wrote:
> ti, 2007-10-23 kello 09:44 -0500, Steve Greenland kirjoitti:
> > But the license on the package itself doesn't make that restriction.
>
> If I have understood things correctly, in England (and the rest of the
> UK?) the copyright is owned by the crown and therefore it is the crown
> that sets the license. [...]
> But don't trust me on this, I am merely speculating.
AFAICT, that's incorrect: this restriction is from the letters patent,
not the copyright (which has long since expired). Wikipedia seems to
have been corrected on this since I last looked.
Also, it's also not clear whether the patent is actively enforced and
it's well-known as not enforced against most printing outside the UK
(the KJV is frequently printed in the US, for example, isn't it?) even
by Englishmen.
So, does debian really need to remove packages of such importance
because of a trivially-avoidable not-obviously-enforced patent?
Surprised,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
Dear Customer,
Your item has arrived at the UPS Post Office at February 18, but the courier was unable to deliver parcel to you.
Review the document that is attached to this e-mail!
With thanks and appreciation,
Theodore Rodriguez,
UPS Parcels Delivery Manager.
Debbugs is free software and licensed under the terms of the GNU General
Public License version 2. The current version can be obtained
from https://bugs.debian.org/debbugs-source/.