Re: Re: DFSG-ness of two
Hi, [I should have requested to keep pkg-pascal-devel@l.a.d.o in the CC] Both of those files allow the option of a modified LGPL. That being said, I acknowledge that cqrlog_1.9.0-1/src/RegExpr.pas doesn't allow this option. I must admit that I missed it so far that the file is (nearly equivalent) in fpc. I found the following quote on the upstream list about that inclusion [1], unfortunately without proof: But I asked Sorokin if he could relicense TRegExpr from RegExpStudio in the same modifyed LGPL as the FPC RTL and FCL and he agreed! I couldn't find the option to use the modified LGPL in the lazarus version, not even in older versions. I will ask Sorokin if the option mentioned above is also valid for Lazarus. At least this gives the option to include the functionality of synregexp in Lazarus without jumping big hoops. Paul [1] http://lists.freepascal.org/pipermail/fpc-devel/2011-August/025239.html signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [Pkg-pascal-devel] DFSG-ness of two
Hi Francesco, On 29-05-15 23:07, Francesco Poli wrote: Second: Windows XP Theme Manager is freeware. You may freely use it in any software, including commercial software, provided you accept the following conditions: 1) The software may not be included into component collections and similar compilations which are sold. If you want to distribute this software for money then contact me first and ask for my permission. [...] The second license appears to be clearly non-free: it fails to explicitly grant permission to copy, redistribute, and modify (it just talks about using, which is a vague term) Are you sure? Clause 3 says: 3) If you modify and/or distribute the code to any third party then you must not veil the original author. To me this says that you are allowed to modify and distribute, just not veil authorship. Is even this not enough? Indeed, it doesn't mention copy. This doesn't help the unfreeness about selling it. I recommend you to get in touch with the copyright owner of this second file and try to persuade him to re-license the file under DFSG-free terms, such as, for instance, the Expat license [2]. I will. Paul signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
DFSG-ness of two
Hi Debian legal, I am investigating two files in the Lazarus source with the following two licenses. I am wondering what you make of this (mostly wondering about clause 3 of the first license and clause 1 of the second). My interpretation of this is that they are non-DFSG, but I am also aware that some fonts also have a similar clause (about it being only in a collection of fonts for sale). As removing the files will involve some heavy lifting from our side, I rather ask here. First: - You may use this software in any kind of development, - including comercial, redistribute, and modify it freely, - under the following restrictions : - 1. This software is provided as it is, without any kind of -warranty given. Use it at Your own risk.The author is not -responsible for any consequences of use of this software. - 2. The origin of this software may not be mispresented, You -must not claim that You wrote the original software. If -You use this software in any kind of product, it would be -appreciated that there in a information box, or in the -documentation would be an acknowledgement like - - Partial Copyright (c) 2004 Andrey V. Sorokin -http://RegExpStudio.com -mailto:a...@mail.ru - - 3. You may not have any income from distributing this source -(or altered version of it) to other developers. When You -use this product in a comercial package, the source may -not be charged seperatly. - 4. Altered versions must be plainly marked as such, and must -not be misrepresented as being the original software. - 5. RegExp Studio application and all the visual components as -well as documentation is not part of the TRegExpr library -and is not free for usage. Second: Windows XP Theme Manager is freeware. You may freely use it in any software, including commercial software, provided you accept the following conditions: 1) The software may not be included into component collections and similar compilations which are sold. If you want to distribute this software for money then contact me first and ask for my permission. 2) My copyright notices in the source code may not be removed or modified. 3) If you modify and/or distribute the code to any third party then you must not veil the original author. It must always be clearly identifiable that I, Mike Lischke, am the original author. Although it is not required it would be a nice move to recognize my work by adding a citation to the application's about box or a similar place. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
confirm apache 1 and gpl-1+ situation
Hi Debian Legal readers [Please keep the bug in CC to document the discussion there.] I am investigating the situation of xmlrpc-c because of RC bug 760377 [1]. The point is that a statement about a GPL-1+ file [2] was missing in the d/copyright file. While checking the package for other missing statements, I found one (unused) file covered by the Apache 1.0 license [3]. Can you please confirm that it is OK to ship both files in one source package, although, AFAICT the licenses are incompatible so the files can not be used simultaneous? Or would this Apache 1.0 file need to be stripped from the source? Am I missing options? Paul [1] https://bugs.debian.org/760377 missing license in debian/copyright [2] http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/collab-maint/xmlrpc-c.git/tree/lib/util/getoptx.h?h=debian-sid [3] http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/collab-maint/xmlrpc-c.git/tree/tools/turbocharger/mod_gzip.c?h=debian-sid signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [Tts-project] Is it allowed to change license statement? [Was: Requesting sponsorship for Catalan Festival support]
On 25-05-14 23:27, David Prévot wrote: I am surprised by the fact that you changed the text of the copyright statement as found in festvox/upc_ca_ona_hts.scm. The policy (4.5) clearly states that’s not allowed: “Every package must be accompanied by a verbatim copy of its copyright information”. And thinking about it even more, also the license itself does not allow it (unless my understanding of the English word retain is not correct): The code must retain ... and the following disclaimer. Paul signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Is it allowed to change license statement? [Was: Requesting sponsorship for Catalan Festival support]
Hi Sergio, debian-legal Sergio, sorry to annoy you (one last time I hope) with this license. On 21-05-14 00:54, Sergio Oller wrote: I have standarized to Festvox. Given that the changes were formatting and a spelling mistake I have used the same text for both. I am surprised by the fact that you changed the text of the copyright statement as found in festvox/upc_ca_ona_hts.scm. That clearly states: CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY AND THE CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS WORK, which you changed to THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND THE CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS WORK. I understand your reasoning, but as I am unsure if this is allowed, I ask debian-legal here for advise. Is such a change to the license statement allowed (even for upstream)? For reference, you can find the current debian/copyright and the source with the header here: http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=tts/festvox-ca-ona-hts.git;a=blob;f=debian/copyright;h=d4ee07c3623f790e0b930ed28c45c7ee567538ff;hb=138ec71480eba981f4edee1f1ada2bb0d3e55bb4 http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=tts/festvox-ca-ona-hts.git;a=blob;f=festvox/upc_ca_ona_hts.scm;h=66744bd0f4f48e53f7f437595ac11031a0045d71;hb=138ec71480eba981f4edee1f1ada2bb0d3e55bb4 Paul signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [Pkg-pascal-devel] Please confirm non-distributability of Novell SDK material
On 20-04-14 17:57, Abou Al Montacir wrote: Please find below a discussion about a licence issue found during review of FPC 2.6.4 packaging. The complete discussion could be followed on [1] and/or [2]. Bug has been filed, and the file has been removed from fpc yesterday. http://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=26041 http://svn.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi?view=revisionrevision=27596 http://svn.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi?view=revisionrevision=27597 Paul signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Please confirm non-distributability of Novell SDK material
Hi Debian-legal readers [Please CC the Pascal list on reply] I believe that I (well Lintian to be honest) found a file [1] in fpc that is not distributable. The license of the SDK follows at the end of this e-mail. The sentence that I found most problematic is the following: Novell grants You the non-exclusive, non-transferable right to: a) internally use the Early Access Release Materials and Internal Tools in support of Your efforts to develop Derivative Software hereunder (but You may not include any portion of Early Access Release Materials or Internal Tools in Derivative Software); b) use, modify, and compile source code Software for the purpose of creating Developer Products, if the source code Software is identified as licensed for use in creating Developer Products; and, c) reproduce and distribute Derivative Software as part of a Developer Product. If I understand it right, a is not applicable to the file in question as distribution is not internally use. B is not applicable as the file in question is not source code Software and use, modify and compile does not mean distribution. C is not applicable as it only allows derivative software (which in their definition is binary) to be distributed, not the SDK files themselves. Additionally the license is non-transferable, which makes it unsuitable for Debian (and the file lacks source, that is an other Debian problem). Paul [1] fpcsrc/rtl/netwlibc/pre/libcpre.gcc.o Full license: # Novell Developer License Agreement 1. PURPOSE. Novell makes available the Novell developer software and documentation (the Software) under the terms of this Novell Developer License Agreement. If You do not agree to these terms, You may not access or use the Software. 2. DEFINITIONS. The following terms have the meanings assigned to them below: Derivative Software means the Binary code Software and/or Binary code that results from your compilation of modified or unmodified source code Software. Derivative Software may not include Early Access Release Materials or Internal Tools. Developer Product means Your own computer product that incorporates Derivative Software and does not substantially duplicate the capabilities or compete with the Derivative Software or the Software. Early Access Release Materials means Software and/or Documentation Novell identifies as beta, pre-release, futures, or as an early access release. Internal Tools means compatibility criteria, test suites, test tools, end user products, and other programs designed to aid in the development of, but not be incorporated in, Derivative Software Products. 3. LICENSES. Use of the Software and Documentation is subject to the restrictions contained in this Agreement. The Software contains various software programs with different license rights. Novell grants You the non-exclusive, non-transferable right to: a) internally use the Early Access Release Materials and Internal Tools in support of Your efforts to develop Derivative Software hereunder (but You may not include any portion of Early Access Release Materials or Internal Tools in Derivative Software); b) use, modify, and compile source code Software for the purpose of creating Developer Products, if the source code Software is identified as licensed for use in creating Developer Products; and, c) reproduce and distribute Derivative Software as part of a Developer Product. Sample Source Code. Sample source code that is made available as part of the Software may include a license grant that is broader then the license granted above in 3. If so, Your license to use the sample source code is as described in the license language included with the sample source code. Open Source Software. Your license to use software that is provided subject to a separate open source license is described in and subject to the license agreement included with the software. Third Party Products. As a service to You, certain third party software products may be made available to You from Novell. Your license to use such products is as described in and subject to the license agreement provided by the third party. 4. RESTRICTED SOFTWARE. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, portions of the Software and/or Documentation may be subject to restrictions set forth in terms that accompany those portions. You agree to abide by such restrictions. If such restrictions are unacceptable to You, You may not use the Software. 5. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS. Novell reserves all rights not expressly granted to You. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing You: a) acknowledge that the source code of the binary code Software represents and embodies trade secrets of Novell or its licensors (except for source code made publicly available by the licensor); b) agree not to disassemble, decompile, or otherwise reverse engineer the binary code Software to discover the source code and/or trade secrets embodied in the source code; c)
Re: [Pkg-pascal-devel] Please confirm non-distributability of Novell SDK material
On 19-04-14 11:22, Riley Baird wrote: Use of the Software and Documentation is subject to the restrictions contained in this Agreement. The Software contains various software programs with different license rights. . . . Open Source Software. Your license to use software that is provided subject to a separate open source license is described in and subject to the license agreement included with the software. I'm not really sure what to make of this last bit, but I just thought I'd put it out there. Well, I think the license stated in my original e-mail covers all files in Novell SDK releases as in the release I looked into there is a file SDK_README.html that reads at the bottom: All files provided in this release are subject to the Novell Developer License Agreement, which can be found in the license.txt file provided in this download. Although, this might not mean anything because the file license.txt is not to be found (instead it is called SDK_LICENSE). Paul signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [Pkg-pascal-devel] Please confirm non-distributability of Novell SDK material
On 19-04-14 12:28, Riley Baird wrote: I don't think that the name of the file is important, so long as the license has the same name. Since the Novell Developer License Agreement applies here: -The SDK is definitely nonfree, so it must be removed from main -For the reason that you mentioned in your first email (non-transferable licence), it seems that it can't even be put into non-free unless Debian expressly gets permission to grant others permission to use the software under this license. We don't even use the file (it is removed in clean target and will be stripped from source in my next upload), but I like to convince upstream as well. Do they have a problem distributing this file? Paul signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Possible compatibility issue custom license versus GPL(2) in cacti
Hi, While working on the package cacti, I came across some files included in that project where I am unsure of the distributability or compatibility of the code, since the cacti project itself is under the GPL2 license. The files in question are in the include/treeview folder which can be viewed on-line at [1], i.e. ftiens4.js and ftiens4_export.js. As the license for these files is not included in the project, but a link is provided in the headers for these files, I took a look at the web-site of the treeview project [2], where a link can be found to what I believe are the two possible licenses for this source. I have copied the Distributor's license below this e-mail. The part I am worried about is this: You are not authorized to download and/or use the TreeView source code from this application for your own purposes. Could you please help me identifying if/what actions need to be taken? If this license is incompatible with GPL2 I expect that I should at least contact upstream about this license violation. Paul [1] http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=pkg-cacti/cacti.git;a=tree;f=include/treeview [2] http://www.treeview.net/ [3] http://www.treeview.net/tv/license.asp TreeView License: Distributor's License This License For Customer Use of GubuSoft TreeView Software (LICENSE) is the agreement which governs use of the TreeView software by GubuSoft (“GUBUSOFT”) downloadable herefrom, including computer software and associated documentation (SOFTWARE). By downloading, installing, copying, or otherwise using the SOFTWARE, you agree to be bound by the terms of this LICENSE. If you do not agree to the terms of this LICENSE, do not use the SOFTWARE. GUBUSOFT grants Customer a royalty-free, perpetual license to use SOFTWARE with unlimited server CPUs and internet domains. An unlimited number of end users may access and use the SOFTWARE. Customer may redistribute SOFTWARE subject to limitations. GUBUSOFT grants Customer rights to modify the source code, for use within their application. 1. DEFINITIONS 1.1 Customer. Customer means the entity or individual that downloads the SOFTWARE. 2. GRANT OF LICENSE 2.1 GUBUSOFT hereby grants Customer the following non-exclusive, non-transferable right to use the SOFTWARE. 2.1.3 LIMITATIONS Customer may not rent, lease, or transfer the rights to the SOFTWARE to someone else. Customer may redistribute and use SOFTWARE in source code form provided (a) Customer Applications of SOFTWARE add primary and substantial functionality, and are not merely a set or subset of any of the functionality of the SOFTWARE, or a set or subset of any of the code or other files of the SOFTWARE; (b) the source code retains all source code comments, including all copyright notices, without modification; (c) Customer includes a valid copyright notice on their Application; and (d) Customer agrees to indemnify, hold harmless, and defend GubuSoft from and against any claims or lawsuits, including attorneys' fees, that arise or result from the use or distribution of Customer's Application. Customer may redistribute and use SOFTWARE in binary form provided (a) Customer Applications of SOFTWARE add primary and substantial functionality, and are not merely a set or subset of any of the functionality of the SOFTWARE, or a set or subset of any of the code or other files of the SOFTWARE; (b) Customer agrees to indemnify, hold harmless, and defend GubuSoft from and against any claims or lawsuits, including attorneys' fees, that arise or result from the use or distribution of Customer's Application; and (c) the following notices are included in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the Customer's Application: Copyright (C) 2006 Conor O'Mahony (gubus...@gubusoft.com) All rights reserved. This application includes the TreeView script. You are not authorized to download and/or use the TreeView source code from this application for your own purposes. For your own FREE copy of the TreeView script, please visit the http://www.treeview.net Web site. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED AS IS AND WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. If Customer is using the free version of SOFTWARE, Customer must ensure that the JavaScript Tree Menu link at the top of the TreeView is visible and readable in their Web page or application. Customer may not harm the GUBUSOFT intellectual property rights using any media or via any electronic or other method now known or later discovered. Customer may not use the GubuSoft name, the name of the TreeView author, or the names of any source code contributors to endorse or promote products derived from this SOFTWARE without specific prior written permission. Customer may not utilize the SOFTWARE in a manner which is disparaging to GUBUSOFT. 3. TERMINATION This LICENSE will automatically terminate if Customer fails to comply
Bug#506977: FPC: copyright infringement in pre 2.2.2 sources
Hi debian-legal (please cc [EMAIL PROTECTED] on reply) I just filed the bug below about a copyright infringement in the fpc source from before version 2.2.2 (that is everything except unstable). I am also following and trying to help on the Ubuntu bug which discusses the same problem [1]. Could you help by explaining what needs to be done (if anything) with the current old-stable, stable and testing sources? It looks like we should take this seriously, but I fear this is slightly above my head. Especially the fact that upstream removed all the old releases from their website seems to mark that they took it very seriously. Paul [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/fpc/+bug/275688 Original Message Subject: Bug#506977: FPC: copyright infringement in pre 2.2.2 sources Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 10:42:13 -0600 From: Paul Gevers To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Package: fpc Version: 2.2.0-dfsg1-9 Version: 2.0.0-4 Severity: serious Thanks As can be read in the changelog of the latest version the old source of fpc has a copyright infringment: - Possible CodeGear Copyright infringements in the source were reworked using cleanroom approach. Following the full discussion for the same issue in Ubuntu (discussed in LP bug 275688 [1]) it looks like upstream is now positive of the infringement. Upstream removed all old releases from their servers. Debian should probably seek for a similar solution or relicense (although the latter solution is said in [1] that it should probably never be mentioned) I know it is late for Lenny, but I think we should look into this ASAP. I will point debian-legal to this bug as well. Paul [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/fpc/+bug/275688 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
