Re: GPL3 compatible?
Hi Charles, Charles Plessy wrote: it looks like you are discussing the file rtengine/cubic.cc in RawTherapee: http://code.google.com/p/rawtherapee/source/browse/trunk/rtengine/cubic.cc correct I will answer to your last question first. If the RawTherapee authors obtained the agreement of Ken Turkowski to relicense his work, then there is no problem to have it licensed under the GPL and the above custom license. The GPL gives I would expect some kind of notice about the re-licensing agreement, though. the freedoms that are necessary for Debian and are not explicitely written in the original license, and the original license does not withdraw freedoms given by the GPL. If you have doubts that the relicensing was permitted, then it is better to contact both parties before proposing a RawTherapee package to Debian. The original license cubic.cc is vague by todays standards, and it would be preferable to check with the original author that he really meant that he does not want his source code to be modified. rtengine/cubic.cc is not very long and implements an algebra forumla that was discovered centuries ago. If it is confirmed that there are license issues, for instance if the original author is not reachable, then replacing the file can be the easiest solution to the problem. True. Thanks! Best, Ludovico signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
GPL3 compatible?
Hi, I was wondering whether this license statement is DFSG/GPL3 compatible. /* Copyright (C) 1997-2001 Ken Turkowski. turk_at_computer.org * * All rights reserved. * * Warranty Information * Even though I have reviewed this software, I make no warranty * or representation, either express or implied, with respect to this * software, its quality, accuracy, merchantability, or fitness for a * particular purpose. As a result, this software is provided as is, * and you, its user, are assuming the entire risk as to its quality * and accuracy. * * This code may be used and freely distributed as long as it includes * this copyright notice and the above warranty information. */ The statement does not explicitly state that modifications are allowed, but just says that the code is freely distributable. How should this be considered wrt DFSG? Moreover the upstream author of RawTherapee re-licensed the file under GPL3 (keeping the above statement, but adding a GPL3 header). AFAIK he cannot do that, but the file has to keep only its original license... correct? Thank you in advance for your help, Cheers, Ludovico signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: GPL3 compatible?
Ludovico Cavedon cave...@debian.org writes: The statement does not explicitly state that modifications are allowed, Yes. “may be used” is so vague as to be useless for these purposes, IMO. It certainly doesn't grant permission to redistribute modified versions of the work. but just says that the code is freely distributable. It is also self-contradictory; the “All rights reserved.” should IMO be removed from any license text, since some rights are explicitly *not* being reserved. Moreover the upstream author of RawTherapee re-licensed the file under GPL3 (keeping the above statement, but adding a GPL3 header). AFAIK he cannot do that, but the file has to keep only its original license... correct? Right. The license statement as you present it does not grant anyone permission to redistribute modified versions, nor to re-license the work to other recipients, both of which would be needed for that change to be legal. The apparent intent of the author would be well served by the widely-understood and wholly free-software Expat license terms URL:http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt. As it stands, only the copyright holders in the work can make that change. -- \“When in doubt tell the truth. It will confound your enemies | `\ and astound your friends.” —Mark Twain, _Following the Equator_ | _o__) | Ben Finney pgpwobNwYVFLy.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GPL3 compatible?
Ben Finney wrote: Right. The license statement as you present it does not grant anyone permission to redistribute modified versions, nor to re-license the work to other recipients, both of which would be needed for that change to be legal. Clear. The apparent intent of the author would be well served by the widely-understood and wholly free-software Expat license terms URL:http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt. As it stands, only the copyright holders in the work can make that change. Interesting. I'll try to propose this license. Thanks for the clarifications! Cheers, Ludovico signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: GPL3 compatible?
Le Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 03:45:51PM -0700, Ludovico Cavedon a écrit : Hi, I was wondering whether this license statement is DFSG/GPL3 compatible. /* Copyright (C) 1997-2001 Ken Turkowski. turk_at_computer.org * * All rights reserved. * * Warranty Information * Even though I have reviewed this software, I make no warranty * or representation, either express or implied, with respect to this * software, its quality, accuracy, merchantability, or fitness for a * particular purpose. As a result, this software is provided as is, * and you, its user, are assuming the entire risk as to its quality * and accuracy. * * This code may be used and freely distributed as long as it includes * this copyright notice and the above warranty information. */ The statement does not explicitly state that modifications are allowed, but just says that the code is freely distributable. How should this be considered wrt DFSG? Moreover the upstream author of RawTherapee re-licensed the file under GPL3 (keeping the above statement, but adding a GPL3 header). AFAIK he cannot do that, but the file has to keep only its original license... correct? Dear Ludovico, it looks like you are discussing the file rtengine/cubic.cc in RawTherapee: http://code.google.com/p/rawtherapee/source/browse/trunk/rtengine/cubic.cc I will answer to your last question first. If the RawTherapee authors obtained the agreement of Ken Turkowski to relicense his work, then there is no problem to have it licensed under the GPL and the above custom license. The GPL gives the freedoms that are necessary for Debian and are not explicitely written in the original license, and the original license does not withdraw freedoms given by the GPL. If you have doubts that the relicensing was permitted, then it is better to contact both parties before proposing a RawTherapee package to Debian. The original license cubic.cc is vague by todays standards, and it would be preferable to check with the original author that he really meant that he does not want his source code to be modified. rtengine/cubic.cc is not very long and implements an algebra forumla that was discovered centuries ago. If it is confirmed that there are license issues, for instance if the original author is not reachable, then replacing the file can be the easiest solution to the problem. Have a nice sunday, -- 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/20100321014305.ga31...@kunpuu.plessy.org
