Retract: dissident test has been proven wrong and should not be used any more
Hi, On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 10:04:22PM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote: Agh ... who added this ... test should be done only to DFSG. The proposed dissident test does not work and is proven to be wrong in some cases already. Let me make this simple. I retract this general statement. What I had problem was discussion of dissident test to the disclaimer related to NO WARRANTY. The dissident test itself used against main licensing condition is fine. Osamu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120930151603.GA14524@goofy.localdomain
Analysis of the Academic Free License (AFL) v3.0
Hello everybody, while reviewing subversion/1.7.5-1 debian/copyright file [1], I noticed that debian/contrib/svn_load_dirs is licensed under the AFL v3.0 . [1] http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/s/subversion/subversion_1.7.5-1/copyright I re-read the archived discussion [2] about the AFL v2.1 and I analyzed the AFL v3.0 . [2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/10/msg00230.html I would like your help in assessing the non-freeness of this license, before filing a serious bug report against subversion (recommending to either persuade the copyright holder to re-license in a DFSG-free manner, or remove the non-free file from the package). Here's the complete text of the license, as quoted in the subversion package debian/copyright file [1]. My personal comments will follow shortly. Academic Free License (AFL) v. 3.0 This Academic Free License (the License) applies to any original work of authorship (the Original Work) whose owner (the Licensor) has placed the following licensing notice adjacent to the copyright notice for the Original Work: Licensed under the Academic Free License version 3.0 1) Grant of Copyright License. Licensor grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, sublicensable license, for the duration of the copyright, to do the following: a) to reproduce the Original Work in copies, either alone or as part of a collective work; b) to translate, adapt, alter, transform, modify, or arrange the Original Work, thereby creating derivative works (Derivative Works) based upon the Original Work; c) to distribute or communicate copies of the Original Work and Derivative Works to the public, under any license of your choice that does not contradict the terms and conditions, including Licensor's reserved rights and remedies, in this Academic Free License; d) to perform the Original Work publicly; and e) to display the Original Work publicly. 2) Grant of Patent License. Licensor grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non- exclusive, sublicensable license, under patent claims owned or controlled by the Licensor that are embodied in the Original Work as furnished by the Licensor, for the duration of the patents, to make, use, sell, offer for sale, have made, and import the Original Work and Derivative Works. 3) Grant of Source Code License. The term Source Code means the preferred form of the Original Work for making modifications to it and all available documentation describing how to modify the Original Work. Licensor agrees to provide a machine-readable copy of the Source Code of the Original Work along with each copy of the Original Work that Licensor distributes. Licensor reserves the right to satisfy this obligation by placing a machine-readable copy of the Source Code in an information repository reasonably calculated to permit inexpensive and convenient access by You for as long as Licensor continues to distribute the Original Work. 4) Exclusions From License Grant. Neither the names of Licensor, nor the names of any contributors to the Original Work, nor any of their trademarks or service marks, may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this Original Work without express prior permission of the Licensor. Except as expressly stated herein, nothing in this License grants any license to Licensor's trademarks, copyrights, patents, trade secrets or any other intellectual property. No patent license is granted to make, use, sell, offer for sale, have made, or import embodiments of any patent claims other than the licensed claims defined in Section 2. No license is granted to the trademarks of Licensor even if such marks are included in the Original Work. Nothing in this License shall be interpreted to prohibit Licensor from licensing under terms different from this License any Original Work that Licensor otherwise would have a right to license. 5) External Deployment. The term External Deployment means the use, distribution, or communication of the Original Work or Derivative Works in any way such that the Original Work or Derivative Works may be used by anyone other than You, whether those works are distributed or communicated to those persons or made available as an application intended for use over a network. As an express condition for the grants of license hereunder, You must treat any External Deployment by You of the Original Work or a Derivative Work as a distribution under section 1(c). 6) Attribution Rights. You must retain, in the Source Code of any Derivative Works that You create, all copyright, patent, or trademark notices from the Source Code of the Original Work, as
Re: Analysis of the Academic Free License (AFL) v3.0
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 17:12:08 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote: [...] My personal comments will follow shortly. My own personal analysis of this license is included below. Academic Free License (AFL) v. 3.0 [...] 3) Grant of Source Code License. The term Source Code means the preferred form of the Original Work for making modifications to it and all available documentation describing how to modify the Original Work. This is problematic, as was in AFL v2.1: if I want to distribute Source Code, have I to ship *every* single piece of available documentation that describes how to modify the Original Work? Even independently written documentation? Does this satisfy DFSG#9? Licensor agrees to provide a machine-readable copy of the Source Code of the Original Work along with each copy of the Original Work that Licensor distributes. Licensor reserves the right to satisfy this obligation by placing a machine-readable copy of the Source Code in an information repository reasonably calculated to permit inexpensive and convenient access by You for as long as Licensor continues to distribute the Original Work. This is weird, as was in AFL v2.1: Licensor promises to distribute source, but it seems that there is no requirement for the *licensee* to do so. This could weaken my concerns above... The license indeed does not seem to attempt implementing a copyleft mechanism, hence the *licensee* seems to have permission to distribute non-source forms, without providing the corresponding source code. [...] 5) External Deployment. The term External Deployment means the use, distribution, or communication of the Original Work or Derivative Works in any way such that the Original Work or Derivative Works may be used by anyone other than You, whether those works are distributed or communicated to those persons or made available as an application intended for use over a network. As an express condition for the grants of license hereunder, You must treat any External Deployment by You of the Original Work or a Derivative Work as a distribution under section 1(c). This is an Affero-like restriction: use through network is assimilated to distribution. This means that, among other restrictions, the obligation to obtain express license acceptance assent from recipients also extends to remote users (through the network). I would say that this clause makes other non-free restrictions even worse. 6) Attribution Rights. You must retain, in the Source Code of any Derivative Works that You create, all copyright, patent, or trademark notices from the Source Code of the Original Work, as well as any notices of licensing and any descriptive text identified therein as an Attribution Notice. This is basically unchanged from AFL v2.1 and concerns me: any section marked as Attribution Notice must be retained. Regardless of what it actually contains? Looks like some sort of unremovable (or even possibly unmodifiable?) section... Seems to conflict with DFSG#3... As Andrew Suffield commented on AFL v2.1: that's non-free if there are any significant 'Attribution Notice's. This is a thinly disguised variation on 'Invariant Sections'. [...] 9) Acceptance and Termination. If, at any time, You expressly assented to this License, that assent indicates your clear and irrevocable acceptance of this License and all of its terms and conditions. If You distribute or communicate copies of the Original Work or a Derivative Work, You must make a reasonable effort under the circumstances to obtain the express assent of recipients to the terms of this License. This is almost unchanged from AFL v2.1 and is my main concern: distributors must obtain express license acceptance assent from recipients. This is non-free, I would say. DFSG#1? Because of the Affero-like clause, this assent must be obtained from remote users, too. This makes it even worse. As MJ Ray commented on AFL v2.1, this is also a practical problem for Debian mirrors, regardless of any DFSG consideration. [...] 10) Termination for Patent Action. This License shall terminate automatically and You may no longer exercise any of the rights granted to You by this License as of the date You commence an action, including a cross-claim or counterclaim, against Licensor or any licensee alleging that the Original Work infringes a patent. This termination provision shall not apply for an action alleging patent infringement by combinations of the Original Work with other software or hardware. This is problematic, even though I've seen clauses that are even worse. There is no clear consensus about the DFSG-freeness of such a clause. Some think clauses like this are OK, others think they are non-free, and/or too broad. 11) Jurisdiction, Venue and Governing Law. Any action or suit relating to this License may be
Re: Bug#681654: About kstars-data-extra-tycho2 distributability
tags 681654 - fixed-upstream thanks On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 07:33:38PM +0100, Noel David Torres Taño wrote: date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 10:52:43 +0200 from: HOTLINE-DU-CDS Non-Nominatif (UDS) cds-quest...@unistra.fr to: Noel David Torres Taño env...@rolamasao.org, HOTLINE-DU-CDS Non-Nominatif (UDS) cds-quest...@unistra.fr subject: Re: About Catalogues License Dear Noel Torres, here is the CDS policy for the scientific data we distribute: Catalogues available at CDS contain scientific data distributed for free, for a scientific usage. Companies including such data in their commercial products cannot charge their clients for the data. Furthermore, users must be informed of the origin of the data: this means an explicit reference to the service provided by the CDS and also to the original author(s) of each catalogue. IANAL, but this strikes me as DFSG, specifically section #6: 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research. It seems to me this data should be removed from the package's source and that this is /not/ fixed upstream. A. -- Il faut tout un village pour élever un enfant. - Proverbe africain signature.asc Description: Digital signature
