Re: public domain no modification: Expat
FYI, upstream agreed to change the pseudo public domain license into an MIT one (expat): http://math.hws.edu/javamath/ Thanks everyone for comments/suggestions. On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 10:08 PM, Francesco Poli invernom...@paranoici.org wrote: On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 15:10:26 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote: On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 12:01:45AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: [...] That's not my understanding of the issue under consideration: more details are included in my own analysis [1]. Yes, because as usual your analysis is way out in left field. I really cannot understand the reason for all this hatred. Did I do any nasty things to you in the past? Are you unable to have a discussion without indulging in ad hominem attacks? My impression is that clause 2 introduces odd restrictions on how modified versions are packaged package is synonymous with name in this case. DFSG#4 says free works may require a name change when modified. As Walter Landry pointed out [2], these packaging restrictions interfere with the ability to create drop-in replacements and with the freedom to translate the work into other programming languages. These restrictions seem to go beyond what is allowed by DFSG#4. [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2012/04/msg00017.html and insists that modifications be documented in comments (which, depending on how it is interpreted, may be a very strong restriction). You mean like this restriction? a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change. No, I mean like the restriction actually included in the clause under discussion: the modifications are documented in comments. This restriction looks definitely different from the one you quoted from the GNU GPL v2. The GPL just requires me to write notices where I state that I changed the files and the date of any change. On the other hand, the restriction under discussion requires me to document the modifications in comments. As noted by Walter Landry [2], this forces the use of comments, which may be syntactically unavailable in some cases. Moreover, this restriction is a bit vague, and could be even interpreted as requiring that the reasoning behind each modification is explained and discussed thoroughly in comments. This would be a very good documenting practice, but mandating it through licensing terms looks fairly overreaching (at least to me). You know, the one in the GPLv2? Your claims that this may be non-free are absurd. I don't think so, since, as explained above, the restriction under consideration is different from the one found in the GNU GPL v2. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE -- 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/CA+7wUsxi9fge1Uszx¼r6qsvkmcabsaedruzzgqjnhtygn...@mail.gmail.com
Re: public domain no modification: Expat
On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 10:05:56 +0200 Mathieu Malaterre wrote: FYI, upstream agreed to change the pseudo public domain license into an MIT one (expat): http://math.hws.edu/javamath/ This seems to be great news! :-) I hope the new license (Expat/MIT) applies to all the files in the package (that is to say, to both categories of files: those that were previously under a simpler license and those that were previously under a nastier license). Thanks everyone for comments/suggestions. Thanks a lot to you, for persuading upstream to switch to a well-known and widely-used Free Software license! This is really appreciated, at least from my side. Bye, and thanks again. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpKeexChrONh.pgp Description: PGP signature
foremost package - Licence of debian/* files
Dear Niall and Gürkan, I'll adopt[0] the foremost package and I would like to know what licence have you granted to the work you've made (debian/* files). I'm trying to upgrade d/copyright to a machine readable format[1]. If you don't have any complains, I think we should grant a GPL-3+ licence. So far, this is an extract of how d/copyright will be. Files: debian/* Copyright: 2004-2006 Niall Sheridan ni...@evil.ie 2006-2010 Gürkan Sengün gur...@phys.ethz.ch 2012 Raúl Benencia rbenen...@linti.unlp.edu.ar Licence: GPL-3+ Please, let me know your opinion/suggestions. PS: I'm CCing debian-legal. [0] http://bugs.debian.org/661488 [1] http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/ -- Raúl Benencia signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: foremost package - Licence of debian/* files
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 09:33:06PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: Hi, I see [1] that the package is currently public domain, except for a couple of files, which are instead copyrighted and released under the terms of the GNU GPL v2 or later. [1] http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/f/foremost/current/copyright Yes, that's right. Concerning that topic, I've emailed upstream maintainers because the software is said to be in public domain, but file extract.c has a copyright line. Hence I wonder: why would you want to gratuitously restrict the whole package to GPL-3+ just because of debian/* ? I would suggest licensing debian/* files under GPL-2+ for consistency with the packaged work. I'm not an expert in licences, that's why I CC-ed debian-legal. I really appreciate your suggestions and, if former maintainers agree, GPL-2+ is the licence I will grant to debian/* files. PS: Please, CC me because I am not in debian-legal mailing list. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: foremost package - Licence of debian/* files
Le Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 09:33:06PM +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit : On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 15:36:22 -0300 Raúl Benencia wrote: I see [1] that the package is currently public domain, except for a couple of files, which are instead copyrighted and released under the terms of the GNU GPL v2 or later. [1] http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/f/foremost/current/copyright Hence I wonder: why would you want to gratuitously restrict the whole package to GPL-3+ just because of debian/* ? I would suggest licensing debian/* files under GPL-2+ for consistency with the packaged work. Actually, the only evidence I see for api.c and ole.h being GPL-2+ is the statement on Chicago's project page on SourceForge. http://sourceforge.net/projects/chicago/develop I would rather suggest a license more in line with public domain works, such as Creative Commons zero license, the SQLite public domain dedication, or the GNU all-permissive license. http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ http://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/License-Notices-for-Other-Files.html Have a nice day, -- 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: http://lists.debian.org/20120414032407.gc4...@falafel.plessy.net
