Re: Source files

[Charles Plessy]

> Charles Plessy <ple...@debian.org> writes:
> > 
> > Maybe the long line was machine-generated at the beginning, but it does not
> > matter anymore.

Le Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 10:12:07AM +0200, Ole Streicher a écrit :
> 
> Why not? If I take the GPL definition, the question is not whether it is
> actual (and, BTW, also not whether it is automatically generated) but
> what "is preferred" (holy passive) for modification.

Yes, that what I wanted to mean :)  To me, it looks like the file that we are
discussing is the preferred form for modification.

-- 
Charles

Re: Is possible relicense from GPL to BSD?

[Charles Plessy]

Le Tue, May 31, 2016 at 08:34:06PM -0300, Eriberto Mota a écrit :
> 
> The distorm3 upstream relicensed the source code from GPL3+ to
> BSD-4-Clause. I think it is wrong but I didn't found references about
> it. So, I need opinions about this issue.

Hi Eriberto,

if the distorm3 upstream developer fully holds the copyright on the software,
then he can relicense as he wishes.

However, BSD-4-Clause is a poor choice, since it is not compatible with the
GPL, which can cause trouble to GPL-licensed projects using the distorm3 source
code and following its updates.

Maybe you can suggest to the author to switch to a GPL-compatible version of
the BSD license ?  I think that he may have picked the 4-clause version only by
inadvertance.  For instance, in the setup.py file, he declares "License :: OSI
Approved :: BSD License", however if one looks at the licenses on the OSI
website, the 4-clause BSD is not there.

Have a nice day,

-- 
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan

Re: debian status on using the PHP license for pear/pecl extensions

[Charles Plessy]

>>>>> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 04:00:56PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On the 2nd of July I got via Neil a message on this topic from SFLC.
>>>>>> IIRC we were planning to publish it, or a synopsis, or something ?

>>>> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 6:51 PM, Neil McGovern <n...@halon.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> AIUI, yes. FTP Masters?

>>> 2015. dec. 3. 22:20 ezt írta ("Ferenc Kovacs" <tyr...@php.net>):
>>>>
>>>> any update on this?

>> On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 8:19 AM, Ferenc Kovacs <tyr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Bump

> On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 11:01 PM, Ferenc Kovacs <tyr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Happy Holidays!
>>
>> (bump)

Le Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 04:31:07PM +0100, Ferenc Kovacs a écrit :
> 
> any progress on this?
> I starting to feel lonely here.

Hi Ferenc,

happy new year !

...  you are not alone :)  don't give up !  Sometimes things are not quick in 
Debian ...

Cheers,

-- 
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan

Re: Status of US Government Works in foreign countries

[Charles Plessy]

> Rytis <rb...@openmailbox.org> writes:
> 
> > US Goverment public domain issue has been discussed a few times in this
> > mailing list [1]. According to the interpretation by [2], this would
> > fall into public domain abroad as well and second part of the above
> > licence snippet may be unenforceable.

Le Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 07:02:04PM +0100, Hendrik Weimer a écrit :
> 
> Unfortunately, this interpretation is wrong. I wrote about this some
> time ago when there was yet another discusion on debian-legal:
> <http://quantenblog.net/free-software/us-copyright-international>
 
> In my opinion, such software should not be distributed by Debian
> because it puts mirror operators located outside of the US at risk.

Hi Hendrik,

so you wrote on your blog six years ago that distributing works done by US
government institutions is "a trap".  Do you have concrete examples of cases
where people fell in that trap and got hurt since then ?

Have a nice day,

-- 
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan

Re: C-FSL: a new license for software from elstel.org

[Charles Plessy]

Le Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 10:49:51PM +0100, Elmar Stellnberger a écrit :
> 
>   In order to improve the situation and make this software available to a
> broader public I have once more designed a completely new license from
> scratch: the so called 'Convertible Free Software License'. It shall give
> the group of main contributors the additional right to re-license like that
> is the case for the various BSD licenses. Organizations or people who have
> not contributed to the development on the other hand will be given no such
> additional right.

Dear Elmar,

I just wanted to add to the advice of not writing new licenses, that part of
the problem that you are trying to address can be solved by requiring a
contributor agreement before merging contributions into your software's main
line.  See for instance <https://owncloud.org/contribute/agreement/>.

Have a nice Sunday,

-- 
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan

Re: ad hoc license: is it DFSG-conformant ?

[Charles Plessy]

Le Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 01:39:12PM +1100, Ben Finney a écrit :
> Jerome BENOIT <calcu...@rezozer.net> writes:
> 
> > On 11/03/16 21:15, Riley Baird wrote:
> > > That licence is fine.
> > > 
> > So now step forward in peace.
> 
> Before achieving peace, please see the rest of the thread in
> ‘debian-legal’; I disagree with Riley's assessment.

Hi Ben,

this ad-hoc license is obviously not of the same quality as some general
license written with lawyer advice, but I think that the missing explicit
permission is a honest imperfection, especially that the software has already
been redistributed for years, and that its relicensing was explicitely done to
further facilitate the redistribution and incorporation in larger works.  The
license that we are discussing allows redistribution, and one person receiving
the sources will receive them with a copy of the license, so the author
probably considers it obvious that the recipient can use the software under
that license, and that this does not have to be explicitely written.

In my opinion, this software is DFSG-free, even if its license text could be
improved or replaced by a more general, frequently used and well-understood
license

Have a nice week-end,

-- 
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan

Re: Missing license text in upstream packages

[Charles Plessy]

Le Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 11:00:14PM +, Ian Jackson a écrit :
> 
> The file `pqueue.cabal' (which the git records also show was written
> by the author and copyrightholder) clearly specifies `BSD3'.

Thanks Ian.

On top of this, Haskell packages in the Hackage repository are required to be
open source, and these requirements point at the syntax of .cabal files, which
points at OSI's reference template.

https://opensource.org/licenses/bsd-3-clause

from 
http://hackage.haskell.org/package/Cabal-1.22.8.0/docs/Distribution-License.html

from http://hackage.haskell.org/upload

So the state of pqueue is very clear.

Of course, a pull request to brush up the LICENCE file might be appreciated by
the author(s) anyway.

Have a nice day,

-- 
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan

Re: R packages licensed MIT but not shipping a copy of the MIT license itself

[Charles Plessy]

Le Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 03:32:01PM +, Mattia Rizzolo a écrit :
> 
> Still, I think the way the R project distributes MIT-licensed stuff is
> not ok.

Hi Mattia,

the R packages distributed on the Comprehensive R Archive Network (CRAN) are
uploaded there by their own authors, therefore I think that even if the MIT
license text is actually missing from the packages, there is no problem that
CRAN distributes them.

Also, please note that R ships a copy of the MIT license; in Debian it is in
`/usr/share/R/share/licenses/MIT`.  So R users have all the information they
need.

Have a nice day,

Charles

-- 
Charles Plessy
Debian Med packaging team,
http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan

Re: Are there any stats of reasons given for rejections of package to the Package archive ?

[Charles Plessy]

Hi Shirish,

in complement to Paul's answer, I would like to mention the peer-review process
that I outlined in the Debian wiki: <https://wiki.debian.org/CopyrightReview>.

While it never got traction, you are free to try it if you like.

Have a nice day,

-- 
Charles Plessy
Debian Med packaging team,
http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan

Re: Inclusion of PDF with CC Attr 3.0 license

[Charles Plessy]

Le Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 04:38:06PM -0700, Walter Landry a écrit :
> Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> > My personal view is that there would be no problem shipping the PDF,
> > even though Debian's users would have no practical ability to modify
> > this PDF.  Making a modified version of a scientific paper like this
> > one is neither useful, nor, unless especial care is taken, ethical.
> 
> As someone who reads and writes papers, this is not true.  Reusing
> figures for talks and other papers is immensely useful.  Copying the
> LaTeX for an equation can also be quite helpful.  This paper has both
> of these elements.  It is not like it is hard to add the attribution
> required by the license.

Hi all

definitely, when the source is LaTeX, it is tempting to ask the authors or the
publisher if they can provide it.  Indeed, the document discussed here was
produced from a latex source.

pdfinfo gmd-7-225-2014.pdf 
Title:  
Subject:
Keywords:   
Author: 
Creator:copernicus.cls
Producer:   pdfeTeX-1.303
CreationDate:   Wed Jan 29 10:06:49 2014
Tagged: no
UserProperties: no
Suspects:   no
Form:   none
JavaScript: no
Pages:  17
Encrypted:  no
Page size:  595.276 x 785.197 pts
Page rot:   0
File size:  1329711 bytes
Optimized:  no
PDF version:1.4

But let's also consider the extra work demanded to the authors and package
maintainers.  In some case, perhaps quite frequently, the final action taken
will be that the package maintainer will remove the PDF from the package,
because the author and the publisher will favour the solution that is zero work
to them.  But I would also argue, it is zero gain for the user.  These PDFs are
available on line, so deleting them puts no pressure on the ecosystem to force
the authors to request that the publisher share their build system and then
integrate them in their sofware package.

So my personal point of view is that shipping the PDF in the source package is
harmless, shipping it in a binary package is close to useless, and we should
let the package maintainer chose the solution that he finds most suitable.

Have a nice day,

Charles

-- 
Charles Plessy
Debian Med packaging team,
http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan

Re: Can "rockyou" wordlist be packaged in Debian?

[Charles Plessy]

> Eriberto Mota  writes:
> 
> > However, I will wait more opinions before submit a package to Debian.

Le Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:33:02AM +1000, Ben Finney a écrit :
> 
> Don't (only) wait for them here. I would advise you to ask the people
> distributing the work what they think the copyright status of the work
> is.

Hi all,

I am not entirely sure if it will be constructive, but in doubt, it might be
also preferable to get the opinion from those whom the data was stolen, even if
it not copyrightable.  For instance, they may advise on how to use (or not!)
their name in the package description, etc.

Have a nice day,

-- 
Charles

Re: Freeware Public License (FPL)

[Charles Plessy]

Le Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 11:21:37AM +1100, Ben Finney a écrit :
> Ian Jackson  writes:
> 
> > I'm afraid you'll have to go back to the authors/copyrightholders and
> > get them to fix the licence for this particular program.
> 
> Preferably, convince the copyright holders that the reliable option is
> an existing, well-understood, known free-software license such as Apache
> License 2.0 or GNU GPL v3.

Hi Ben,

I think that the GNU all-permissive license is much more in the spirit of the
FPL, provided that the lack of permission for modification was just an
oversight.

https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/License-Notices-for-Other-Files.html

Copying and distribution of this file, with or without modification,
are permitted in any medium without royalty provided the copyright
notice and this notice are preserved.  This file is offered as-is,
without any warranty.


There is also the ISC license, that visually more similar, but has one more
explicit requirement, which is to keep the copyright notice.  Whether the users
of the FPL find this important or not, I do not know...

http://www.isc.org/downloads/software-support-policy/isc-license/

Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any
purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above
copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED “AS IS” AND ISC DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES WITH 
REGARD
TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND
FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL ISC BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, 
OR
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE,
DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER 
TORTIOUS
ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS
SOFTWARE.

Have a nice Sunday,

-- 
Charles

Re: BSD license + should

[Charles Plessy]

Le Sun, Nov 24, 2019 at 08:37:37PM +0100, Michael Banck a écrit :
> 
> |4. Every use of the source code or binary form of the software should
> |acknowledge the following publication:
> |
> |   MolSpin - Flexible and Extensible General Spin Dynamics Software
> |   Claus Nielsen & Ilia A. Solov'yov
> |   Note: The paper is submitted to Journal of Chemical Physics (Special
> | issue on spin chemistry, 2019).
 
> can you suggest a rephrasing of this clause that would make it
> DFSG-free, but be similar in spirit (i.e. nudge the user to cite the
> package if they publish results based on its use)?

Hi Michael,

in the Primer3 software, the authors use the following words:

“We request but do not require that use of this software be cited in
publications as” [...]

https://primer3.org/manual.html

For Primer3 it is not exactly in the license, but I think that I have
seen similar cases where it was.

Have a nice day,

Charles

-- 
Charles Plessy
Debian Med packaging team,
http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med
Akano, Uruma, Okinawa, Japan

Re: Another 2-clause BSD or a mistake?

[Charles Plessy]

Le Sat, Mar 16, 2024 at 10:40:16PM -0700, Soren Stoutner a écrit :

> License: BSD-custom-2-clause

I would recommend a different abbreviation.  BSD-custom-2-clause may
give the false impression that this is a standard BSD 2-clause license
where the copyright holders are not the regents of the university of
California.  BSD-custom-with-endorsement-restriction for instance will
convey the message much more clearly and will stimulate the reader to
pay attention to the details and consequences of this clause.

Have a nice Sunday,

Charles