Re: [X2Go-Dev] [pkg-x2go-devel] Bug#784565: nx-libs-lite: parts are derived from non-free code
On Tue, 12 May 2015 17:41:55 +0200 Mike Gabriel wrote: Hi Kevin, Hello Mike, hello Kevin, hello to all the other recipients. First of all, I wish to express my gratitude to Kevin for his prompt, kind and generous response. thanks for your feedback. Let us wait for Francesco, our expert on license issues, and see what he thinks about your feedback. I think that this is an important first step to solve this issue for the best. Kevin Vigor is one of the copyright owners of the code that was forked before the re-licensing. We now know that he intended the re-licensing to be retroactive and this is really good. I think that now it would be useful to ascertain that the other copyright owners (Brian Pane, Zachary Vonler, Gian Filippo Pinzari) are also OK with this interpretation of the re-licensing operation. Maybe Kevin is able to dig the original conversations (assuming they were carried on by e-mail or similar archived means) or otherwise to get in touch with them and check? Or, alternatively, Kevin could help Mike to get in touch with them? I hope everything may be settled for the best soon. Thanks a lot to everyone involved. -- 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 pgpuVk4dV2yBV.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ x2go-dev mailing list x2go-dev@lists.x2go.org http://lists.x2go.org/listinfo/x2go-dev
Re: [X2Go-Dev] [pkg-x2go-devel] Bug#784565: nx-libs-lite: parts are derived from non-free code
Hi Francesco, On Mi 06 Mai 2015 19:35:32 CEST, Francesco Poli (wintermute) wrote: Package: nx-libs-lite Version: 3.5.0.27-1 Severity: serious Justification: Policy 2.2.1 Hello and thanks for maintaining this package in Debian! I noticed that the debian/copyright states: [...] | Parts of this software are derived from DXPC project. These copyright | notices apply to original DXPC code: | |Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted provided |that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are duplicated in all |such forms. | |THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED ``AS IS'' AND WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED |WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF |MERCHANTIBILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. | |Copyright (c) 1995,1996 Brian Pane |Copyright (c) 1996,1997 Zachary Vonler and Brian Pane |Copyright (c) 1999 Kevin Vigor and Brian Pane |Copyright (c) 2000,2001 Gian Filippo Pinzari and Brian Pane [...] This license lacks the permission to modify the DXPC code. Hence, the original DXPC code does not appear to comply with the DFSG. And the nx-libs-lite is in part derived from DXPC code. This basically means that nx-libs-lite includes parts which are non-free (as they are derived from non-modifiable code) and are also possibly legally undistributable (as they are non-modifiable, but actually modified). The combination with the rest of nx-libs-lite (which is GPL-licensed) may also be legally undistributable (since the license with no permission to modify is GPL-incompatible). If there's anything I misunderstood, please clarify. Otherwise, please address this issue as soon as possible. The copyright owners for the original DXPC code should be contacted and persuaded to re-license under GPL-compatible terms. Thanks for your time. Bye. Please follow-up with reading [1]. As it seems, dxpc has been long ago relicensed to BSD-2-clause (for v3.8.1 in/around 2002). I have no exact clue, if NoMachine forked prior to that (if they quote the old licensing terms, then probably they did). However, how do you see the situation considering that upstream changed to BSD-2-clause a long time ago. What approach do you propose for nx-libs-lite to get the issue fully fixed? Mike [1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=142028 -- DAS-NETZWERKTEAM mike gabriel, herweg 7, 24357 fleckeby fon: +49 (1520) 1976 148 GnuPG Key ID 0x25771B31 mail: mike.gabr...@das-netzwerkteam.de, http://das-netzwerkteam.de freeBusy: https://mail.das-netzwerkteam.de/freebusy/m.gabriel%40das-netzwerkteam.de.xfb pgp122gMY2ykE.pgp Description: Digitale PGP-Signatur ___ x2go-dev mailing list x2go-dev@lists.x2go.org http://lists.x2go.org/listinfo/x2go-dev
Re: [X2Go-Dev] [pkg-x2go-devel] Bug#784565: nx-libs-lite: parts are derived from non-free code
Hi Francesco, Cc:ing a couple of people/groups being affected by the below. On Mi 06 Mai 2015 19:35:32 CEST, Francesco Poli (wintermute) wrote: Package: nx-libs-lite Version: 3.5.0.27-1 Severity: serious Justification: Policy 2.2.1 Hello and thanks for maintaining this package in Debian! I noticed that the debian/copyright states: [...] | Parts of this software are derived from DXPC project. These copyright | notices apply to original DXPC code: | |Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted provided |that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are duplicated in all |such forms. | |THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED ``AS IS'' AND WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED |WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF |MERCHANTIBILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. | |Copyright (c) 1995,1996 Brian Pane |Copyright (c) 1996,1997 Zachary Vonler and Brian Pane |Copyright (c) 1999 Kevin Vigor and Brian Pane |Copyright (c) 2000,2001 Gian Filippo Pinzari and Brian Pane [...] This license lacks the permission to modify the DXPC code. Hence, the original DXPC code does not appear to comply with the DFSG. And the nx-libs-lite is in part derived from DXPC code. This basically means that nx-libs-lite includes parts which are non-free (as they are derived from non-modifiable code) and are also possibly legally undistributable (as they are non-modifiable, but actually modified). The combination with the rest of nx-libs-lite (which is GPL-licensed) may also be legally undistributable (since the license with no permission to modify is GPL-incompatible). If there's anything I misunderstood, please clarify. Otherwise, please address this issue as soon as possible. The copyright owners for the original DXPC code should be contacted and persuaded to re-license under GPL-compatible terms. Thanks for your time. Bye. I/we will investigate this asap. Thanks for bringing this up. Greets, Mike -- DAS-NETZWERKTEAM mike gabriel, herweg 7, 24357 fleckeby fon: +49 (1520) 1976 148 GnuPG Key ID 0x25771B31 mail: mike.gabr...@das-netzwerkteam.de, http://das-netzwerkteam.de freeBusy: https://mail.das-netzwerkteam.de/freebusy/m.gabriel%40das-netzwerkteam.de.xfb pgpTHpXivb5am.pgp Description: Digitale PGP-Signatur ___ x2go-dev mailing list x2go-dev@lists.x2go.org http://lists.x2go.org/listinfo/x2go-dev
Re: [X2Go-Dev] [pkg-x2go-devel] Bug#784565: nx-libs-lite: parts are derived from non-free code
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 hi everyone, looking at the current homepage of DXPC, the following can be found in their changelog http://www.vigor.nu/dxpc/CHANGES: 3.8.1 Release: [...] Changed license to BSD license. - -Stefan Am 11.05.2015 um 11:07 schrieb Mike Gabriel: Hi Francesco, Cc:ing a couple of people/groups being affected by the below. On Mi 06 Mai 2015 19:35:32 CEST, Francesco Poli (wintermute) wrote: Package: nx-libs-lite Version: 3.5.0.27-1 Severity: serious Justification: Policy 2.2.1 Hello and thanks for maintaining this package in Debian! I noticed that the debian/copyright states: [...] | Parts of this software are derived from DXPC project. These copyright | notices apply to original DXPC code: | | Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted provided |that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are duplicated in all |such forms. | |THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED ``AS IS'' AND WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED | WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF |MERCHANTIBILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. | | Copyright (c) 1995,1996 Brian Pane |Copyright (c) 1996,1997 Zachary Vonler and Brian Pane |Copyright (c) 1999 Kevin Vigor and Brian Pane |Copyright (c) 2000,2001 Gian Filippo Pinzari and Brian Pane [...] This license lacks the permission to modify the DXPC code. Hence, the original DXPC code does not appear to comply with the DFSG. And the nx-libs-lite is in part derived from DXPC code. This basically means that nx-libs-lite includes parts which are non-free (as they are derived from non-modifiable code) and are also possibly legally undistributable (as they are non-modifiable, but actually modified). The combination with the rest of nx-libs-lite (which is GPL-licensed) may also be legally undistributable (since the license with no permission to modify is GPL-incompatible). If there's anything I misunderstood, please clarify. Otherwise, please address this issue as soon as possible. The copyright owners for the original DXPC code should be contacted and persuaded to re-license under GPL-compatible terms. Thanks for your time. Bye. I/we will investigate this asap. Thanks for bringing this up. Greets, Mike ___ x2go-dev mailing list x2go-dev@lists.x2go.org http://lists.x2go.org/listinfo/x2go-dev - -- BAUR-ITCS UG (haftungsbeschränkt) Geschäftsführer: Stefan Baur Eichenäckerweg 10, 89081 Ulm | Registergericht Ulm, HRB 724364 Fon/Fax 0731 40 34 66-36/-35 | USt-IdNr.: DE268653243 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJVUHRuAAoJEG7d9BjNvlEZsCYH/i0GArfIg0xNQ91srhMtMxVf NcaQ5uOJLLZ+e0WOcRMm5Kprg9f6uKQNFRo1dv9NCFNxjrpdR/5/LMmeSYxafIQA beoYbnuMMRBvcjoUN5ScGD/jjng/9VCiwviBVjUc6AhDebGjVone2OtaIXPoMELI ClKnDShC41qQpSUgEESUYHiIIptkkmSrIJS6Ostsby5rhT1mApv7ulBqVvADUKCX OtNZmG+O6Bvur63G2fBTrdQwZAed0+Q6/XlhfOkf5QNG4I9fd5KlrMDpSmO8w7Cm h4rVnveLS5+0afZXs9sImhNW4I7Ah8zh5sAUFNCGXEuO60XRRysUO4i1WjRgnZw= =sgsA -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ x2go-dev mailing list x2go-dev@lists.x2go.org http://lists.x2go.org/listinfo/x2go-dev
Re: [X2Go-Dev] [pkg-x2go-devel] Bug#784565: nx-libs-lite: parts are derived from non-free code
On Mon, 11 May 2015 09:26:36 + Mike Gabriel wrote: [...] As it seems, dxpc has been long ago relicensed to BSD-2-clause (for v3.8.1 in/around 2002). This is great news, indeed! I have no exact clue, if NoMachine forked prior to that (if they quote the old licensing terms, then probably they did). Yep, it's plausible... However, how do you see the situation considering that upstream changed to BSD-2-clause a long time ago. What approach do you propose for nx-libs-lite to get the issue fully fixed? If the fork has been performed before the DXPC re-licensing (as it's likely), I see two possible strategies: (A) someone gets in touch with DXPC copyright owners and asks them whether the re-licensing may be considered retroactive (applicable to older versions of DXPC); in case the answer is negative, DXPC copyright owners should be persuaded to make the re-licensing retroactive (B) nx-libs-lite upstream developers re-fork from scratch, basing the new code on a BSD-licensed version of DXPC (I suspect this may turn out to be somewhat painful...) Obviously, the optimal solution is (A). I hope it may work... Thanks for your time and for your prompt and kind replies. -- 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 pgpZrBaGaocAM.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ x2go-dev mailing list x2go-dev@lists.x2go.org http://lists.x2go.org/listinfo/x2go-dev
Re: [X2Go-Dev] [pkg-x2go-devel] Bug#784565: nx-libs-lite: parts are derived from non-free code
Hi Francesco, On Mo 11 Mai 2015 21:36:59 CEST, Francesco Poli wrote: On Mon, 11 May 2015 09:26:36 + Mike Gabriel wrote: [...] As it seems, dxpc has been long ago relicensed to BSD-2-clause (for v3.8.1 in/around 2002). This is great news, indeed! I have no exact clue, if NoMachine forked prior to that (if they quote the old licensing terms, then probably they did). Yep, it's plausible... However, how do you see the situation considering that upstream changed to BSD-2-clause a long time ago. What approach do you propose for nx-libs-lite to get the issue fully fixed? If the fork has been performed before the DXPC re-licensing (as it's likely), I see two possible strategies: (A) someone gets in touch with DXPC copyright owners and asks them whether the re-licensing may be considered retroactive (applicable to older versions of DXPC); in case the answer is negative, DXPC copyright owners should be persuaded to make the re-licensing retroactive This is the way to go, I will pull in Kevin Vigor (the upstream author of DXPC) into this thread with my next email. (B) nx-libs-lite upstream developers re-fork from scratch, basing the new code on a BSD-licensed version of DXPC (I suspect this may turn out to be somewhat painful...) Yeah, indeed painful. Obviously, the optimal solution is (A). I hope it may work... Thanks for your time and for your prompt and kind replies. Also, Michael DePaulo, one of the upstream NX maintainers noted that DXPC simply used a previous version of the BSD license, see [1]. The weakness of that ancient license template is that modification is not explictily allowed, but neither forbidden. I think, regarding the historical usage of the BSD license predecessor and the switch to BSD-2-clause should be fine already (I am not a lawyer, though). I will contact DXPC upstream nonetheless and ask for a statement. Greets, Mike [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses#Previous_license -- DAS-NETZWERKTEAM mike gabriel, herweg 7, 24357 fleckeby fon: +49 (1520) 1976 148 GnuPG Key ID 0x25771B31 mail: mike.gabr...@das-netzwerkteam.de, http://das-netzwerkteam.de freeBusy: https://mail.das-netzwerkteam.de/freebusy/m.gabriel%40das-netzwerkteam.de.xfb pgpSqxHIrkY60.pgp Description: Digitale PGP-Signatur ___ x2go-dev mailing list x2go-dev@lists.x2go.org http://lists.x2go.org/listinfo/x2go-dev
Re: [X2Go-Dev] [pkg-x2go-devel] Bug#784565: nx-libs-lite: parts are derived from non-free code
Dear Kevin, (I Cc: several people involved in this, also the X2Go development mailing list...) [If you feel unconfortable with discussing the details / the impact of the below in public, feel free to answer to me directly first with questions and concerns, before answering to all people who are listed in Cc:.] Someone from the Debian legal team recently brought up a license issue discovered in nx-libs 3.x series. TL;DR; Suggested by Francesco Poli from the Debian legal team: (A) someone gets in touch with DXPC copyright owners and asks them whether the re-licensing [in 2002] may be considered retroactive (applicable to older versions of DXPC); in case the answer is negative, DXPC copyright owners should be persuaded to make the re-licensing retroactive The person contacting you about the above question is me. Mike Gabriel, Debian Developer and one of the current upstream maintainers of nx-libs 3.x (previously also know as NX redistributed for X2Go) [1]. This issue requires some time of reading from you and (hopefully) a public statement, that the original DXPC code can be considered as BSD-2-clause (the current license) also for released versions prior 2002 when the ancient BSD license template [2] was still shipped with DXPC. For a complete follow-up, please check Debian bug #784565 [3]. We are aware that NoMachine forked DXPC at some early stage around the year 2000 and wrote their own commercial product around it. Obviously, this fork happened before 2002 (i.e., before DXPC release 3.8.1), as libxcomp3 in NoMachine's NX ships the previously used BSD license template. I am not sure, if that fork was easy for you or actually a nuisance. I may only guess at this point. I'd be happy to know more (maybe not in this mail thread, though). NoMachine has stopped publishing NXv3 updates a couple of years ago (2011 IIRC), now. The maintenance has been moved into the hands of the currently available FLOSS projects X2Go, Arctica Project [NEW] and TheQVD. Some of us are running a business model on top of that (consultancy, support contracts, feature development contracts), some of us spend a lot of their free time on improving / maintaining nx-libs (as we call NoMachine's NXv3 at the moment). To outline the impact of my mail clearly: If you say that it was not legal by NoMachine to fork DXPC at the given time (before 2002), then all FLOSS remote desktop / remote application would be in real trouble, because then the core component of their software projects could not be considered as free (as in DFSG, Debian free software guidelines[4]) anymore. Also the code changes originally performed by NoMachine might have been illegal in the first place. All current maintenance activities and also planned future development on nx-libs would become questionable. Thus, I hope you can chime in on this: Dear developers of nx-libs, please assume the BSD-2-license as retroactive and applicable to DXPC version earlier than 3.8.1. As the copyright holder, I agree with modifications of code bases that originate before the change to BSD-2-clause license got introduced in 3.8.1 of DXPC. And... I will bring up that question later (but it is burning under my nails)... Be sure: The nx-libs maintainers would be happy to have the original DXPC author on the nx-libs developer team. But I will bring up that question later (when this very issue is settled). ;-) Greets, Mike [1] https://github.com/ArcticaProject/nx-libs [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses#Previous_license [3] http://bugs.debian.org/784565 [4] http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guidelines On Mo 11 Mai 2015 21:36:59 CEST, Francesco Poli wrote: On Mon, 11 May 2015 09:26:36 + Mike Gabriel wrote: [...] As it seems, dxpc has been long ago relicensed to BSD-2-clause (for v3.8.1 in/around 2002). This is great news, indeed! I have no exact clue, if NoMachine forked prior to that (if they quote the old licensing terms, then probably they did). Yep, it's plausible... However, how do you see the situation considering that upstream changed to BSD-2-clause a long time ago. What approach do you propose for nx-libs-lite to get the issue fully fixed? If the fork has been performed before the DXPC re-licensing (as it's likely), I see two possible strategies: (A) someone gets in touch with DXPC copyright owners and asks them whether the re-licensing may be considered retroactive (applicable to older versions of DXPC); in case the answer is negative, DXPC copyright owners should be persuaded to make the re-licensing retroactive (B) nx-libs-lite upstream developers re-fork from scratch, basing the new code on a BSD-licensed version of DXPC (I suspect this may turn out to be somewhat painful...) Obviously, the optimal solution is (A). I hope it may work... Thanks for your time and for your prompt and kind replies. -- DAS-NETZWERKTEAM
