Distribution (without usage) of shall be used for Good, not Evil-licensed software
Hello people, the openlayers package, which I'm reviewing for sponsorship (mentoree CCed), has a couple of files with the following license: ---8--- Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the Software), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED AS IS, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. ---8--- While I agree this license fails to meet DFSG #6 (No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor), I fail to see a reason why I/my mentoree should repackage the original tarball to remove them. I believe it's sufficient to patch the sources to avoid using those files, or even touching them during the build process: I see a restriction on *usage*, not on *distribution* (this would be clearly stated in debian/copyright, though). Any opinions? Kindly, David -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://deb.li/dapal `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Distribution (without usage) of shall be used for Good, not Evil-licensed software
On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 15:43:14 +0800, Paul Wise wrote: On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 3:30 PM, David Paleino da...@debian.org wrote: the openlayers package, which I'm reviewing for sponsorship (mentoree CCed), has a couple of files with the following license: ... While I agree this license fails to meet DFSG #6 (No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor), I fail to see a reason why I/my mentoree should repackage the original tarball to remove them. You might want to read the thread started by this mail: http://lists.debian.org/20100124144741.gd13...@kunpuu.plessy.org I'll do, thanks. [..] BTW, I presume you are talking about jsmin, in that case just remove them and use yui-compressor. Yes, I am. However, I sent my mail to clarify a doubt, and possibly avoid the overhead of repacking the tarball -- not because of the lack of alternatives ;) Kindly, David -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://deb.li/dapal `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Which license am I looking for?
Hello, On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 13:49:35 +0100, Mark Weyer wrote: What I am looking for: - Copyleft with source requirement, but should not contaminate other software. - No additional burden on anyone. In particular no requirements for derivatives to advertize, to not advertize, to follow some naming convention, or to convey source code at runtime. - No distinction between programs, libraries, images, scripts, documentation, or whatever. Formulations should equally apply to all sorts of software. The only distinction should be source vs. non-source. - Oh, and of course it should be DFSG-free. Also, I am very sceptical about patent retaliation clauses. What about a BSD-like license [0], or also the MIT/X11 license [1]? [0] /usr/share/common-licenses/BSD -- obviously change The Regents of the University of California (and all references to the University) to your name/company/whatever. [1] http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php Both seem to conform to your requirements, if I'm not mistaken. Kindly, David -- . ''`. Debian maintainer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://snipr.com/qa_page `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Building from source required?
On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 11:27:14 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: Must packages in main derive the contents of binary packages from the sources shipped in the source package, Yes. or can they simply copy pre-generated, not directly editable files which have been derived using some other process (not available in the package sources)? From where? David -- . ''`. Debian maintainer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://snipr.com/qa_page `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Advice on wicd license
Hello *, I'm packaging wicd for Debian, and it's licensed under GPL-2+. However, one of its components (uninstall.sh) carries this license: # Copyright 2008 Robby Workman [EMAIL PROTECTED], Northport, AL, USA # Copyright 2008 Alan Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED], Lizella, GA, USA # All rights reserved. # # Redistribution and use of this script, with or without modification, is # permitted provided that the following conditions are met: # # 1. Redistributions of this script must retain the above copyright #notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. # # THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE AUTHOR ''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 AUTHOR 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. Redistribution [..] with or without modification, is permitted seems a free (as in speech) statement, but that All rights reserved scaries me... Any idea on this? Thanks, David -- . ''`. Debian maintainer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://snipr.com/qa_page `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Advice on wicd license
On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 18:19:55 +1000, Ben Finney wrote: David Paleino [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm packaging wicd for Debian, and it's licensed under GPL-2+. However, one of its components (uninstall.sh) carries this license: # Copyright 2008 Robby Workman [EMAIL PROTECTED], Northport, AL, USA # Copyright 2008 Alan Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED], Lizella, GA, USA # All rights reserved. This is redundant and confusing. Taken literally, it contradicts a grant of any license. It would be best for the copyright holder to remove this, since clearly they don't want to reserve *all* rights; they explicitly grant some of them unilaterally to the recipient. Ok, understood. # Redistribution and use of this script, with or without modification, is # permitted Grants everything needed to be DFSG, so long as the restrictions don't take it back. In fact I saw it as DFSG-free, thanks for confirming. provided that the following conditions are met: # # 1. Redistributions of this script must retain the above copyright #notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. This conditions is fine by the DFSG, and it also doesn't require redistribution under the same license terms; therefore, the combined work can be licensed under the GPL. Fine. [..] Redistribution [..] with or without modification, is permitted seems a free (as in speech) statement The whole license is effectively identical to the terms of the Expat license URL:http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt. Well, I'd regard this license as a BSD-1, i.e. BSD with just the first clause (and the header): 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. (taken from /usr/share/common-licenses/BSD) Also, the BSD license itself has a All rights reserved at the top. Maybe I was just too overcautious asking here? But, well, here we say megghiu diri chi sacciu, chi no diri chi sapìa (that's Sicilian, not even Italian... it means it's better to say «I don't know», than saying «I didn't know», meaning better being cautious) The FSF expressly state that works licensed under the terms of the Expat license are GPL-compatible (meaning you can redistribute a derived work under the terms of the GPL) URL:http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#Expat. In any case, also the BSD license I'm referring above is GPL-compatible. but that All rights reserved scaries me... You're right, and it should best be removed by the copyright holder. You might like to communicate with them if possible to get it removed, for maximum clarity of license terms. Sure. I have a good communication with upstream, and they just released this new version because of other copyright issues (regarding a manpage)... only that they added this new script :( Thanks for your reply, David -- . ''`. Debian maintainer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://snipr.com/qa_page `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Advice on wicd license
On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 19:03:27 +1000, Ben Finney wrote: David Paleino [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 18:19:55 +1000, Ben Finney wrote: You're right, and [the All rights reserved clause] should best be removed by the copyright holder. You might like to communicate with them if possible to get it removed, for maximum clarity of license terms. Sure. I have a good communication with upstream, and they just released this new version because of other copyright issues (regarding a manpage)... only that they added this new script :( In my estimation, the situation as you've described still makes the work DFSG-free. You should be able to proceed with confidence, while those negotiations for clarification go on. I already packaged this new version, re-sent my sponsor (and AM) the RFS, and waiting for his reply. Thanks, David -- . ''`. Debian maintainer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://snipr.com/qa_page `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Author name in copyright notice
Hi, I'd like to package a software [1], but I'm encountering possible copyright issues. I contacted upstream to know his real name, in order to put it in debian/copyright, but he wishes to be known as Master Kernel (that is the name provided in the sources). Is that possible? He also asked me whether it's possible to use a generic name (i.e. John Smith) for the copyright notice, and I replied I would have asked here. I believe that the copyright notice should carry the real name of the author, shouldn't it? Thanks, David [1] http://kcheck.sourceforge.net/ -- . ''`. Debian maintainer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://snipr.com/qa_page `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Possible copyright issues
Hi *, I'm packaging a new software for the Debian-Med group, and the source shows this statement: /* This code may be used and modified for non-commercial purposes*/ /* but redistribution in any form requires written permission. */ This is clearly non-DFSG-free. I've contacted the upstream author (CCed), and he said [1] that he would have put it under GPL (which is, indeed, DFSG-free) and that this was stated on the project's homepage [2]. Is that sufficient? Or should he make a new release with that header changed accordingly? Please keep all us CCed. Kindly, David [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-med/2008/01/msg00221.html [2] http://icwww.epfl.ch/~stamatak/AxParafit.html -- . ''`. Debian maintainer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://snipr.com/qa_page `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
