Hi gents, Charles Plessy, on 2026-01-08: > Le Wed, Jan 07, 2026 at 09:44:39PM +0100, Pierre Gruet a écrit : >> c* permission notice appear in supporting documentation. The use * >> c* for commercial purposes is prohibited without permission. * > > Thanks Pierre, I have pinged the authors on GitLab; let's see if there is a > quick reaction.
Dropping all affected files looks feasible at least in the version 1.10.0. I have work in progress in that regard. >> Also I have some doubts about the plastimatch license itself, one reads: >> >> You further agree to >> use, reproduce, make derivative works of, display and distribute >> the Software in compliance with all applicable governmental laws, >> regulations and orders, including without limitation those relating >> to export and import control. > > This is surely the kind of license innovation we don't like but since it > passed > NEW screening I assume it is Free. > > This said export/import control related terms are definitely a good candidate > for a FAQ entry once the new DFSG team is up and running. Andreas, how about > asking them to have a look at this license? Unravelling the dfsg-faq[1], this is close to the following question 12.p, yet subtly different: >>> Q: Can I say "You must obey U.S. export laws"? >>> A: This is non-free because it imposes restrictions on >>> people outside the US which they might otherwise not be >>> subject to. To protect yourself while keeping the license >>> free you can rephrase this as a warning instead of a >>> condition: "Please be aware that this license does not >>> release you from your obligation to follow the law. We note >>> in particular the US Export laws which may impact what you >>> are legally allowed to do with this software, especially >>> with regard to redistribution." >>> >>> A stronger way to phrase this is: It is not the job of a >>> copyright license to reiterate what is or is not legal in a >>> particular jurisdiction. The job of a copyright license is >>> to grant permissions to do things that would otherwise be >>> forbidden under copyright law. My understanding, without being a lawyer, is that Plastimatch license terms would be (borderline) dfsg compliant, because "all applicable governmental laws, regulations and orders" are going to apply anyways; this is a tautaulogy. I don't believe permissible actions would be any different without the sentence in upstream license. A wording closer to the suggestion of the dfsg-faq might have been easier to parse, I agree. [1]: https://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq Have a nice day, :) -- .''`. Étienne Mollier <[email protected]> : :' : pgp: 8f91 b227 c7d6 f2b1 948c 8236 793c f67e 8f0d 11da `. `' sent from my alarm clock `-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
