Re: DFSG-ness of two
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 think you're right. When I wrote that, I was sure I found an LGPL message in Lazarus, but now, no matter how hard I search, I can't find it. 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. Okay, good luck. pgpFGobQtwJsS.pgp Description: PGP signature
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: DFSG-ness of two
Le Sat, May 30, 2015 at 11:26:59AM +1000, Riley Baird a écrit : - 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. But a developer doesn't have the freedom to sell the software for profit to other developers. On Sat, 30 May 2015 10:46:04 +0900 Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org wrote: as suggested in the original question, this clause is similar to clause 1 of the SIL Open Font License 1.1, which is DFSG-Free. Neither the Font Software nor any of its individual components, in Original or Modified Versions, may be sold by itself. Le Sat, May 30, 2015 at 11:58:06AM +1000, Riley Baird a écrit : The second sentence is similar to the Open Font License, but I was talking about the first sentence. Hi again, The two sentences can not be dissociated: the second sentence gives as much freedom as in the SIL OFL 1.1, regardless of the restrictions in the first sentence, so altogether, the clause 3 quoted above is DFSG-Free, if we agree that the SIL OFL 1.1 itself is DFSG-Free. Cheers, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150531000831.ga26...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: DFSG-ness of two
- 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. But a developer doesn't have the freedom to sell the software for profit to other developers. as suggested in the original question, this clause is similar to clause 1 of the SIL Open Font License 1.1, which is DFSG-Free. The second sentence is similar to the Open Font License, but I was talking about the first sentence. The two sentences can not be dissociated: the second sentence gives as much freedom as in the SIL OFL 1.1, regardless of the restrictions in the first sentence, so altogether, the clause 3 quoted above is DFSG-Free, if we agree that the SIL OFL 1.1 itself is DFSG-Free. The second sentence is restricted by the first sentence. Within the meaning of the license, a commercial package does not include source sold to other developers. pgpmnlpL11HKw.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: DFSG-ness of two
- 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. The two sentences can not be dissociated: the second sentence gives as much freedom as in the SIL OFL 1.1, regardless of the restrictions in the first sentence, so altogether, the clause 3 quoted above is DFSG-Free, if we agree that the SIL OFL 1.1 itself is DFSG-Free. The second sentence is restricted by the first sentence. Within the meaning of the license, a commercial package does not include source sold to other developers. That is a different interpretation than mine, and it might be useful to confirm with the original author if this is what he intended. Would you be able to do that? I'm not quite sure that I understand your interpretation, so I wouldn't be able to write the email well. In any case, Debian already redistributes software licensed under these terms in fpc_2.6.4+dfsg-5/fpcsrc/packages/regexpr/src/regexpr.pas and lazarus_1.2.4+dfsg2-1/components/synedit/synregexpr.pas (thanks, codesearch.debian.net), so either this was overlooked, or the interpretation taken by the FTP team is that the second sentence solves the problem introduced by the first. 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. pgpeYofckGHLu.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: DFSG-ness of two
Le Sun, May 31, 2015 at 11:04:32AM +1000, Riley Baird a écrit : - 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. The two sentences can not be dissociated: the second sentence gives as much freedom as in the SIL OFL 1.1, regardless of the restrictions in the first sentence, so altogether, the clause 3 quoted above is DFSG-Free, if we agree that the SIL OFL 1.1 itself is DFSG-Free. The second sentence is restricted by the first sentence. Within the meaning of the license, a commercial package does not include source sold to other developers. That is a different interpretation than mine, and it might be useful to confirm with the original author if this is what he intended. In any case, Debian already redistributes software licensed under these terms in fpc_2.6.4+dfsg-5/fpcsrc/packages/regexpr/src/regexpr.pas and lazarus_1.2.4+dfsg2-1/components/synedit/synregexpr.pas (thanks, codesearch.debian.net), so either this was overlooked, or the interpretation taken by the FTP team is that the second sentence solves the problem introduced by the first. Cheers, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150531013253.ga11...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: DFSG-ness of two
On Sat, 30 May 2015 10:46:04 +0900 Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org wrote: Le Sat, May 30, 2015 at 11:26:59AM +1000, Riley Baird a écrit : - 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. This clause is really annoying, but it seems to allow the file to be sold as part of a commercial package. Hence, it could perhaps be considered to meet DFSG#1. But a developer doesn't have the freedom to sell the software for profit to other developers. as suggested in the original question, this clause is similar to clause 1 of the SIL Open Font License 1.1, which is DFSG-Free. Neither the Font Software nor any of its individual components, in Original or Modified Versions, may be sold by itself. The second sentence is similar to the Open Font License, but I was talking about the first sentence. Have a nice week-end, You too! pgpb44pplfjQz.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: DFSG-ness of two
- 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. This clause is really annoying, but it seems to allow the file to be sold as part of a commercial package. Hence, it could perhaps be considered to meet DFSG#1. But a developer doesn't have the freedom to sell the software for profit to other developers. pgpE5fOl9chlI.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: DFSG-ness of two
Le Sat, May 30, 2015 at 11:26:59AM +1000, Riley Baird a écrit : - 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. This clause is really annoying, but it seems to allow the file to be sold as part of a commercial package. Hence, it could perhaps be considered to meet DFSG#1. But a developer doesn't have the freedom to sell the software for profit to other developers. Hi Riley, as suggested in the original question, this clause is similar to clause 1 of the SIL Open Font License 1.1, which is DFSG-Free. Neither the Font Software nor any of its individual components, in Original or Modified Versions, may be sold by itself. Have a nice week-end, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150530014604.gf4...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: DFSG-ness of two
On Fri, 29 May 2015 14:12:51 +0200 Paul Gevers wrote: Hi Debian legal, Hello Paul, thanks for taking these freeness issues seriously. I am investigating two files in the Lazarus source with the following two licenses. I am wondering what you make of this [...] First: [...] My own personal opinion is that the first license is really borderline, although it could be considered to barely comply with the DFSG. [...] - 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. This clause is really annoying, but it seems to allow the file to be sold as part of a commercial package. Hence, it could perhaps be considered to meet DFSG#1. Anyway, this first license should really be avoided: I recommend you to get in touch with the copyright owner of this first file and try to persuade him to re-license the file under widely used and clearly DFSG-free terms. I would suggest him to re-license under the zlib license [1], which is the closest DFSG-free license I am aware of. [1] http://www.zlib.net/zlib_license.html 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) and it absolutely forbids anyone to sell aggregate software distributions containing the file, thus failing to meet DFSG#1. 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]. [2] http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt I hope this helps. Bye. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpq5jepgXwRU.pgp Description: PGP signature
