LWN.net Logo

Debian and keyboard mapping copyrights

From:  Josselin Mouette <joss-AT-debian.org>
To:  debian-legal-AT-lists.debian.org
Subject:  The copyright of a keyboard mapping and its implementation
Date:  Mon, 16 Mar 2009 17:47:55 +0100
Message-ID:  <1237222075.15164.37.camel@shizuru>
Archive-link:  Article, Thread

Hi,

there are two available layouts for French Dvorak keyboards. One of
them, which is the cause of my concern, was written by Francis Leboutte,
and was originally distributed as a (non-free) Windows driver.

I started then to make another implementation of the same mapping, for
X11. It soon turned out that the mapping forces to use dead keys, which
sucks, so I used a variant that removes this need. Several people asked
me of a French Dvorak layout, so I started to distribute it under the
X11 license, and it finally ended up in the official X.org tarballs.

Later, Francis Leboutte started to license the *layout* (not only the
Windows driver) under a clearly non-free license (CC-NC-ND), and asked
X.org to remove the driver, arguing that the X11-licensed version is
illegal, being a derivative work of his layout. The X.org guys finally
agreed to distribute the original variant instead, with the following
licensing header:
// Licence  : X11 (the layout itself is released under CC-NC-ND licence)

It is my opinion that, in European law, the copyright on a keyboard
mapping does not affect that of its implementation, because, among other
things, of the interoperability exception ? in the same way a function
prototype is not subject to copyright while the function itself is.
Francis Leboutte believes the opposite and claims that drivers
implementing a derivative layout are illegal. I don? think this
disagreement will resolve, since it could only happen in a court, and we
both have better things to do than suing each other for a keyboard
mapping.

However, the Francis Leboutte mapping is now included in Debian. This
means we should settle on this issue: if we consider it non-free, we
must remove this layout (and all derivatives) from the distribution; if
we don?, there? no barrier against including some variants. I? tend
to say we should opt for the conservative approach and remove them;
despite the fact that I like the mapping, we shouldn? include software
with such an unclear copyright status.

Thoughts anyone?

-- 
 .''`.      Debian 5.0 "Lenny" has been released!
: :' :
`. `'   Last night, Darth Vader came down from planet Vulcan and told
  `-    me that if you don't install Lenny, he'd melt your brain.


(Log in to post comments)

keyboard mapping copyrights

Posted Mar 18, 2009 15:39 UTC (Wed) by DeletedUser32991 ((unknown), #32991) [Link]

Terrible! I hope the X.org people revisit this decision and get legal advice.

keyboard mapping copyrights

Posted Mar 20, 2009 6:50 UTC (Fri) by bartux (guest, #57259) [Link]

This legal issue is not new. And that is why a new (and better, but that is my opinion) layout for french dvorak has been developped: the fr-dvorak-bépo (license CC-BY-SA and GFDL, now version 1.0 rc2).

More information (in french) here: http://clavier-dvorak.org

Debian and keyboard mapping copyrights

Posted Mar 18, 2009 15:45 UTC (Wed) by boklm (subscriber, #34568) [Link]

Is it illegal to use xmodmap when using this layout ?

Debian and keyboard mapping copyrights

Posted Mar 18, 2009 15:48 UTC (Wed) by nye (guest, #51576) [Link]

Wow, so they have a file which is considered to be under the X11 license, except for its contents, which can't be modified or sold.

The cognitive dissonance is beginning to hurt my brain.

Plus, the idea that you can copyright a layout seems pretty ridiculous on the face of it.

Silver lining of US copyright law

Posted Mar 18, 2009 16:11 UTC (Wed) by quotemstr (subscriber, #45331) [Link]

US patent law is be insane, and our copyright durations are excessive, but at least you can't copyright crap like keyboard layouts.

Silver lining of US copyright law

Posted Mar 18, 2009 19:35 UTC (Wed) by alecs1 (guest, #46699) [Link]

While I understand what the discussion here is, I would be so happy if there was the situation that some Romanian guy made the research into a standard and I paid him 1 euro per computer, rather than having the crap situation that we have now, with around 6 possible layouts and most people just replacing Romanian diacritics: ăâîșț with aaist (or ăâîşţ), to my displeasure:
-when searching documents
-when having to resolve ambiguities in text
-when having to deal with what set of characters crap application fonts are able to display or not such that everyone "sees" me.

Also, no one created a Romanian Dvorack, to my knowledge.

Silver lining of US copyright law

Posted Mar 18, 2009 19:38 UTC (Wed) by alecs1 (guest, #46699) [Link]

I give up, not even LWN gets the Romanian characters right!
This just confirms my point, altough I'm surprised to see it happen here, because I have no problem in many other places.

Romanian characters

Posted Mar 18, 2009 19:44 UTC (Wed) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link]

If you want to type in HTML entities, you need to do an HTML-formatted comment. I took the liberty of fixing them up for you.

Romanian characters

Posted Mar 18, 2009 19:48 UTC (Wed) by quotemstr (subscriber, #45331) [Link]

Alsø, directly-entered unicode characters work fine in text mode. :-)

Romanian characters

Posted Mar 18, 2009 23:30 UTC (Wed) by alecs1 (guest, #46699) [Link]

Thank you Mr. Corbet for fixing my message.

quotesmgr, what I actually did was typing unicode characters in the plain text editor, it wouldn't cross my mind to write html codes :).
In the preview window my symbols where already replaced by these funny html pre "unicode era" workarounds. Just for testing: ø&#8364;&#259;î&#537;&#539;â.

A LWN deffect maybe?

Romanian characters

Posted Mar 19, 2009 2:39 UTC (Thu) by knobunc (subscriber, #4678) [Link]

The LWN page encoding is ISO-8859-1 (aka Latin-1) as stated in the line:
<meta HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">

So when your web browser sees a character that is not in the Latin-1 range it sends it as an HTML entity when submitting the form. When it is being interpreted as HTML, those are saved as the entities and sent back to the browser as such (as we can see from viewing the source in your original post: &#259;âî&#537;&#539;). But then it is in plain text mode, the &s are escaped and thus the entities do not expand.

Now... is it a bug that the LWN site doesn't specify the encoding as UTF-8? Possibly... but it will probably be a tremendous pain to fix. Simply changing the encoding may break all old articles and posts unless they are stored somewhere with the encoding attached... and new UTF-8 comments to an old Latin-1 article may break unless something transforms them. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

-ben

Romanian characters

Posted Mar 19, 2009 12:44 UTC (Thu) by Cato (subscriber, #7643) [Link]

It's not hard to mechanically convert a whole tree of files from ISO-8859-1 to UTF-8 (see find(1) and iconv(1)). Usually it's more a matter of testing the web application to ensure it works with UTF-8, and fixing any issues.

Romanian characters

Posted Mar 20, 2009 2:21 UTC (Fri) by lordsutch (guest, #53) [Link]

LWN could allow forms to be submitted as UTF-8 using accept-charset, then translate the comments to entity-encoded ASCII or ISO 8859-1 for storage and subsequent inclusion in pages. I'm not sure what underlies LWN, but in Python it's fairly easy:

body = form.getfirst('comment') # grab utf-encoded comment
ubody = body.decode('UTF-8', 'replace') # Translate UTF-8 back to Unicode
ebody = ubody.encode('ascii', 'xmlcharrefreplace') # and make 7-bit HTML safe

Romanian characters

Posted Mar 18, 2009 23:34 UTC (Wed) by alecs1 (guest, #46699) [Link]

The user name mangling is unpardonable. Sorry, I was too hurried.

Debian and keyboard mapping copyrights

Posted Mar 19, 2009 1:35 UTC (Thu) by daniels (subscriber, #16193) [Link]

Wow, so they have a file which is considered to be under the X11 license, except for its contents, which can't be modified or sold.

The cognitive dissonance is beginning to hurt my brain.


Yeah, that makes absolutely no sense.

OLPC in Nigeria

Posted Mar 18, 2009 16:02 UTC (Wed) by endecotp (guest, #36428) [Link]

I recall that OLPC had some trouble of this sort in Nigeria. Maybe that experience would tell us something about the legal issues.

OLPC in Nigeria

Posted Mar 26, 2009 15:32 UTC (Thu) by lwf (subscriber, #57388) [Link]

I'm a member of the OLPC project, and what was specifically the issue was the *physical* arrangement of the CTRL key in place of caps lock. The control key still sent a CTRL signal to the kernel, not a CAPSDOWN.

Debian and keyboard mapping copyrights

Posted Mar 19, 2009 1:34 UTC (Thu) by daniels (subscriber, #16193) [Link]

We (the X.Org Foundation) are taking advice from FSFE.

Debian and keyboard mapping copyrights

Posted Mar 19, 2009 11:34 UTC (Thu) by sho (subscriber, #14609) [Link]

I find it infuriating that Francis Leboutte tries to copyright a keyboard layout, while Richard Qwerty never earned a dime!

Debian and keyboard mapping copyrights

Posted Mar 20, 2009 0:18 UTC (Fri) by dag- (subscriber, #30207) [Link]

:-)

Neither did Franklin Azerty, for that matter...

Debian and keyboard mapping copyrights

Posted Mar 28, 2009 6:18 UTC (Sat) by efexis (guest, #26355) [Link]

And I think we all know where we'd be if James 123 had copyrighted the telephone keypad layout...

Debian and keyboard mapping copyrights

Posted Mar 19, 2009 13:42 UTC (Thu) by jejb (subscriber, #6654) [Link]

Why is there suddenly all this fuss about the creative commons licence on separate components? The linux kernel Tux boot logo has an artistic plus credit licence, and the new Tuz logo is Creative Commons ... debian still boots up displaying them.

CC licenses

Posted Mar 19, 2009 14:04 UTC (Thu) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link]

The problem being that the license alleged to govern use of this keyboard layout is a noncommercial, no derivatives license - non-free by just about anybody's standards, in other words.

Creative commons licences

Posted Mar 20, 2009 2:52 UTC (Fri) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link]

CC licences ain't CC licences. There are six of them (plus older versions):

http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/

Only two of the six can be considered free-as-in-software, and there's another which allows unrestricted reproduction and distribution but no derivative works.

Copyright © 2009, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds