New Adobe CMaps license free enough for Debian?
Hi, The Ghostscript project includes some so-called CMap files contributed by Adobe, which until recently was shipped with a non-free license allowing only redistribution: Permission is granted for redistribution of this file provided this copyright notice is maintained intact and that the contents of this file are not altered in any way from its original form. Consequently Ghostscript in Debian have shipped without those CMap files, hurting (as I understand it) handling of multibyte fonts. September 25 CMap files was updated in Ghostscript Subversion, with the following license: Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. 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. Commit message indicates that Ghostscript project interpret the new license as allowing modifications. I would like to have the legal teams opinion on whether this new license is acceptable for the Debian project. I am especially concerned about the the initial limitations: do use in source form mean we are allowed only to compile the virgin code or does that also allow us to derive and compile something else? Kind regards, - Jonas co-maintainer of Ghostscript for Debian Please cc me personally on responses, as I am not subscribed to the list. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: New Adobe CMaps license free enough for Debian?
On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 15:28:30 +0200 Jonas Smedegaard wrote: Hi, Hi! :-) The Ghostscript project includes some so-called CMap files contributed by Adobe, which until recently was shipped with a non-free license allowing only redistribution: [...] Consequently Ghostscript in Debian have shipped without those CMap files, hurting (as I understand it) handling of multibyte fonts. September 25 CMap files was updated in Ghostscript Subversion, with the following license: Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. 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. Mmmmh, it seems that you didn't *fully* quote the text of the new license... Commit message indicates that Ghostscript project interpret the new license as allowing modifications. I would like to have the legal teams opinion on whether this new license is acceptable for the Debian project. [...] According to recent news about this re-licensing, the newly adopted license is a BSD license: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2009/09/msg00044.html The blog post cited in the above message is: http://bonedaddy.net/pabs3/log/2009/09/24/adobe-data-freed/ and the actual text of the new license is: http://opensource.adobe.com/wiki/display/cmap/License which is basically the 3-clause BSD license. The 3-clause BSD license is a simple and permissive Free Software non-copyleft license: it is perfectly fine for Debian (main). There are many other packages in main that are released under equivalent terms. [...] Please cc me personally on responses, as I am not subscribed to the list. Done. -- New location for my website! Update your bookmarks! http://www.inventati.org/frx . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpKSkRybsxLW.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: New Adobe CMaps license free enough for Debian?
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 9:28 PM, Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk wrote: September 25 CMap files was updated in Ghostscript Subversion, with the following license: Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. 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. In addition to Francesco's mail, I'd like to ask why ghostscript is committing the CMap files to their SVN, shouldn't they just depend on them instead of making an embedded data copy? -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: New Adobe CMaps license free enough for Debian?
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 04:03:53PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 15:28:30 +0200 Jonas Smedegaard wrote: September 25 CMap files was updated in Ghostscript Subversion, with the following license: Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. 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. Mmmmh, it seems that you didn't *fully* quote the text of the new license... I believe that I quoted the _license_ part of a CMap source header, deliberately leaving out the _copyright_ and _disclaimer_ parts, ad I considered those irrelevant for the question at hand. Please do educate me if that was a) incorrectly separated, b) bad style to leave out those other parts for questions like this or c) something else was wrong with what I did. Here is verbatim the top 43 lines of that same CMap file, rev10096 of http://svn.ghostscript.com/ghostscript/trunk/gs/Resource/CMap/78-EUC-H : %!PS-Adobe-3.0 Resource-CMap %%DocumentNeededResources: ProcSet (CIDInit) %%IncludeResource: ProcSet (CIDInit) %%BeginResource: CMap (78-EUC-H) %%Title: (78-EUC-H Adobe Japan1 0) %%Version: 10.003 %%Copyright: --- %%Copyright: Copyright 1990-2009 Adobe Systems Incorporated. %%Copyright: All rights reserved. %%Copyright: %%Copyright: Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or %%Copyright: without modification, are permitted provided that the %%Copyright: following conditions are met: %%Copyright: %%Copyright: Redistributions of source code must retain the above %%Copyright: copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following %%Copyright: disclaimer. %%Copyright: %%Copyright: Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above %%Copyright: copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following %%Copyright: disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials %%Copyright: provided with the distribution.. %%Copyright: %%Copyright: Neither the name of Adobe Systems Incorporated nor the names %%Copyright: of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote %%Copyright: products derived from this software without specific prior %%Copyright: written permission.. %%Copyright: %%Copyright: THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND %%Copyright: CONTRIBUTORS AS IS AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, %%Copyright: INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF %%Copyright: MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE %%Copyright: DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR %%Copyright: CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, %%Copyright: SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT %%Copyright: NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; %%Copyright: LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) %%Copyright: HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN %%Copyright: CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR %%Copyright: OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS %%Copyright: SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. %%Copyright: --- %%EndComments Commit message indicates that Ghostscript project interpret the new license as allowing modifications. I would like to have the legal teams opinion on whether this new license is acceptable for the Debian project. [...] According to recent news about this re-licensing, the newly adopted license is a BSD license: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2009/09/msg00044.html Oh, above thread started as a dialog with Masayuki Hatta. Odd that he did not inform his fellow package maintainers of Ghostscript... :-/ The blog post cited in the above message is: http://bonedaddy.net/pabs3/log/2009/09/24/adobe-data-freed/ and the actual text of the new license is: http://opensource.adobe.com/wiki/display/cmap/License which is basically the 3-clause BSD license. Oh, ok. I did not recognize it as BSD license. Thanks for the clarification. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: New Adobe CMaps license free enough for Debian?
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 10:24:56PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 9:28 PM, Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk wrote: September 25 CMap files was updated in Ghostscript Subversion, with the following license: Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. 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. In addition to Francesco's mail, I'd like to ask why ghostscript is committing the CMap files to their SVN, shouldn't they just depend on them instead of making an embedded data copy? We (the Debian ghostscript team) do not include CMap files, upstream do. They include several software parts that we then avoid using - more so in recent cleanups made by me, and even more (separate packaging of jbig2dec) still pending. Masayuki Hatta is probably more knowledgable about CMap files than me. I just didn't hear from him for a long time so did not expect him to be active currently. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: spim
Mackenzie Morgan maco...@gmail.com writes: [Please CC me in replies] Done. I am sending to the ‘debian-legal’ forum, to discuss the license terms of the work. * Package name: spim Version : 7.5-1 Upstream Author : James R. Larus la...@microsoft.com * URL : http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~larus/spim.html * License : other Section : non-free/electronics It builds these binary packages: spim - MIPS R2000/R3000 emulator The package appears to be lintian clean. The license is as follows: You may make copies of SPIM for your own use and modify those copies. All copies of SPIM must retain my name and copyright notice. You may not sell SPIM or distribute SPIM in conjunction with a commercial product or service without the expressed written consent of James Larus. This grants no permission to redistribute. What license from the copyright holder does the Debian project have to redistribute this in ‘non-free’? If the answer is “nothing explicit”, then the default copyright restrictions prevent the Debian project from redistributing the work at all. -- \“The right to search for truth implies also a duty; one must | `\ not conceal any part of what one has recognized to be true.” | _o__) —Albert Einstein | Ben Finney b...@benfinney.id.au -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
