Re: Difference between license in files and in COPYING file
Hello, Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au wrote: No, it violates DFSG §3. If the package violates DFSG, so it should be moved to non-free archive. Because the package d4x does not have an maintainer (it is orphaned again) Who can do this? Should it do the QA group? Or can it be an NMU? I maintain Debian packages only since three months, so I don't want do it by myself. Fondest regards, Joachim Wiedorn signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Difference between license in files and in COPYING file
Hello, Christofer C. Bell christofer.c.b...@gmail.com wrote: ie; Not even a Debian Maintainer can modify the software to package it. So this software looks like a non-starter for inclusion in Debian, even in non-free. So what is the right way? Who can / must decide this? If non-free is not possible, 'd4x' must be removed from debian archives ... On the other side 'd4x' was distributed by Debian since more than 6 years. There are some users ... Fondest regards, Joachim Wiedorn signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Difference between license in files and in COPYING file
Le Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 11:18:57PM +0100, Joachim Wiedorn a écrit : /*WebDownloader for X-Window * *Copyright (C) 1999-2002 Koshelev Maxim *This Program is free but not GPL!!! You can't modify it *without agreement with author. You can't distribute modified *program but you can distribute unmodified program. * *This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, *but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of *MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. */ Dear Joachim, it looks to me like the erroneous author's summary of the Artistic licence, that forbids to redistibute modified versions of the program under the same name without the approbation of the author unless some special actions are done. But while I do not think this makes the package non-free, that it is abandonned upstream gives another good reason to remove the package. Does it provide functionalities that are not found in other packages? (the answer to this question is off-topic on debian-legal, so if necessary continuing that part of the discussion in the bug report would be preferable). Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Debian Med packaging team, http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med 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/20100214232732.ga9...@kunpuu.plessy.org
Re: Difference between license in files and in COPYING file
Hello, Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au wrote: No, it violates DFSG §3. So I can do nothing. Today I have tried to contact the old developer = author with his old email adress, but I think I get no answer. Thank you for this effort, it is necessary to try. Today I have received his answer mail! And he says only: I think that D4X is not needed anymore without informations about licensing. Can you remove that part of the work, either replacing it with an equivalent work under a compatible free license, or modifying the function of the program to work without it? No, because it is the fully source code of this package. Thanks for your answers. After some searching I have seen the successor can be 'uget' aka 'urlgfe'. So there is only on step to do: Move d4x into the non-free archive. I hope the Debian QA Team will do it (the have done the last updates). Fondest regards, Joachim Wiedorn signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Difference between license in files and in COPYING file
Joachim Wiedorn ad_deb...@joonet.de writes: So there is only on step to do: Move d4x into the non-free archive. Take care: The fact that a work is non-free does not mean the Debian project has license to redistribute it in the ‘non-free’ section. Many works are so non-free that they cannot be legally redistributed at all by the Debian project. So the question of “can this package be redistributed by the Debian project at all?” is not automatically answered. What is the complete set of license terms for the work? That is, what license terms apply to each distinctly-licensed part? You've mentioned Artistic License 1.0, but you've also shown a declaration that contradicts those terms. -- \ “Holy hole in a donut, Batman!” —Robin | `\ | _o__) | Ben Finney -- 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/87tytkejya@benfinney.id.au
Re: Difference between license in files and in COPYING file
On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.auben%2bdeb...@benfinney.id.au wrote: Joachim Wiedorn ad_deb...@joonet.de writes: So there is only on step to do: Move d4x into the non-free archive. Take care: The fact that a work is non-free does not mean the Debian project has license to redistribute it in the ‘non-free’ section. Many works are so non-free that they cannot be legally redistributed at all by the Debian project. This part of the license seems to answer that question pretty clearly: /* WebDownloader for X-Window * * Copyright (C) 1999-2002 Koshelev Maxim * This Program is free but not GPL!!! You can't modify it * without agreement with author. You can't distribute modified * program but you can distribute unmodified program. * * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. */ ie; Not even a Debian Maintainer can modify the software to package it. So this software looks like a non-starter for inclusion in Debian, even in non-free. -- Chris
Difference between license in files and in COPYING file
Hello, I want to overtake the package d4x, which is still in Debian repository. And this package need some development (upstream), which I could do, too. The old developer = author have deleted the hole package website and nobody have heard of him for a long time ( 4 years I mean). But now I have seen, that this package is not fully licensed under the Artistic license 1.0 (as everybody would thought), but each source file have the following header: /* WebDownloader for X-Window * * Copyright (C) 1999-2002 Koshelev Maxim * This Program is free but not GPL!!! You can't modify it * without agreement with author. You can't distribute modified * program but you can distribute unmodified program. * * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. */ Now I ask me if this package agree with the DFSG ? Today I have tried to contact the old developer = author with his old email adress, but I think I get no answer. What can I do, if the author doesn't answer? Is there a way? Fondest regards, Joachim Wiedorn signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Difference between license in files and in COPYING file
On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 23:18:57 +0100 Joachim Wiedorn wrote: Hello, Hi! I want to overtake the package d4x, [...] But now I have seen, that this package is not fully licensed under the Artistic license 1.0 (as everybody would thought), but each source file have the following header: /*WebDownloader for X-Window * *Copyright (C) 1999-2002 Koshelev Maxim *This Program is free but not GPL!!! You can't modify it *without agreement with author. You can't distribute modified *program but you can distribute unmodified program. * *This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, *but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of *MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. */ Now I ask me if this package agree with the DFSG ? I would say that this license grant trivially fails to meet DFSG#3 ... Today I have tried to contact the old developer = author with his old email adress, but I think I get no answer. What can I do, if the author doesn't answer? Is there a way? It is my understanding that very little (if not nothing at all) can be done to make a non-free work become DFSG-free, when you cannot track down the copyright holder(s) and get in touch with them... :-( -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/progs/scripts/pdebuild-hooks.html Need some pdebuild hook scripts? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpwq6llwcKEc.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Difference between license in files and in COPYING file
Joachim Wiedorn ad_deb...@joonet.de writes: The old developer = author have deleted the hole package website and nobody have heard of him for a long time ( 4 years I mean). That does make it rather more difficult; the copyright regime we live under means that, regardless of the fact no-one has been able to contact this party, copyright control still rests with them. But now I have seen, that this package is not fully licensed under the Artistic license 1.0 (as everybody would thought), but each source file have the following header: /*WebDownloader for X-Window * *Copyright (C) 1999-2002 Koshelev Maxim *This Program is free but not GPL!!! You can't modify it *without agreement with author. You can't distribute modified *program but you can distribute unmodified program. Trivially non-free. Now I ask me if this package agree with the DFSG ? No, it violates DFSG §3. Today I have tried to contact the old developer = author with his old email adress, but I think I get no answer. Thank you for this effort, it is necessary to try. What can I do, if the author doesn't answer? Is there a way? The work as a whole remains non-free so long as it is derived from a work with the above terms. Can you remove that part of the work, either replacing it with an equivalent work under a compatible free license, or modifying the function of the program to work without it? -- \ “Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a | `\finite world is either a madman or an economist.” —Kenneth | _o__) Boulding | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
