Hey Pablo, hey debian legal's!
I believe I hold copyright for xxd versions as e.g. found bundled with vim.
I am not aware of any current maintainers or development on xxd.
I hereby grant permission to distribute and use xxd
under X11-MIT or GPL-2.0 (at the user's choice)
Please forward to whoever needs to know.
You are interpreting to much. The license text is silly. It was written
tongue in cheek.
today, I would not write it that way.
dejacode came to some interesting interpretation, not sure how they did
that.
Please cc me directly, I don't think I am currently subscribed to
debian-legal.
thanks, JW-
-------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: License for xxd in
vim-common Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 03:03:09 +0000 (UTC)
Resent-From: debian-legal@lists.debian.org Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015
13:46:07 +1100 From: Ben Finney <ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au> To:
debian-legal@lists.debian.org CC: Pablo Duboue <pablo.dub...@gmail.com>
Pablo Duboue <pablo.dub...@gmail.com> writes:
I recently learn to use this handy hexdump tool, xxd. It is
distributed as part of vim-common and it has the following license:
(c) 1990-1997 by Juergen Weigert
<jnwei...@informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
Distribute freely and credit me,
make money and share with me,
lose money and don't ask me.
None of this is phrased as a grant of permission nor a requirement. Its
legal enforcibility would presumably suffer for that.
Some DFSG-required permissions are not explicitly granted. That makes
the work non-free, IMO.
It also fails the Tentacles of Evil test, IMO: a future hostile
copyright holder can use this to restrict the freedom of the work
retroactively, without needing to change the license text.
Permissions:
If we are to infer any grant of permission from “distribute freely”,
“make money”, “lose money”, then that set omits permission to
redistribute under the same license terms, and permission to
redistribute derived works. That fails DFSG §3.
Does “distribute freely” grant permission to distribute in compiled form
only? In source form only? Both together? This may pass DFSG §2, or not.
Permission to redistribute for a fee is required by DFSG §1; does “make
money” grant that? Does the rest of that caluse restrict it, and if so
how?
Permission to “lose money” is unproblematic, as far as I can tell :-)
If, on the other hand, the phrasing in those clauses is not enforcible,
then no permissions are granted, the default “All rights reserved”
applies, and the work is trivially non-free.
Requirements:
If we are to infer any requirement from “credit me”, “share with me”,
“don't ask me”, it's quite unclear what requirements those actually are.
If any of them are enforcible, though, then presumably all of them must
be met simultaneously.
What does “credit me” entail? Only the copyright holder can say for
sure. If the requirement is to credit in an obnoxious advertising-like
manner, then that's been judged non-DFSG-free.
What does “share with me” entail? Is it “share [the money] with me”? Is
it “share [the work] with me”? How could a recipient ever know whether
they have complied with that restriction sufficiently? This uncertainty
may fall foul of DFSG §6. IMO it clearly falls foul of DFSG §1.
What does “don't ask me” entail? This has the same enforcibility as the
other requirements; if we're going to comply with the other requirements
we need to comply with this one. But “don't ask me [about your loss]”?
This requirement is either an obstacle to all the other permissions, or
it's a superfluous lawyer-bomb.
https://enterprise.dejacode.com/license_library/Demo/xxd/
this is a "classic two clause open source license" with a special
commercial obligation that is not specific.
Perhaps the author meant it that way, but the text does not imply that
unless read *extremely* generously, and inferring far more than is
written in the text. I disagree with that assessment.
This fails the Tentacles of Evil test squarely, IMO: it is far too easy
for a future hostile copyright holder to decide on any of a range of
different, justifiable, interpretations of this license text that makes
this work non-free in any of a number of ways.
Please cc: me as I'm not subscribed to debian-legal.
Done.
Hope that helps, and thank you for caring about the freedom of Debian
recipients.
--
Your Data, Your Cloud, Your Way!
ownCloud GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, Holger Dyroff, Frank Karlitschek
Schloßäckerstrasse 26a, 90443 Nürnberg, HRB 28050 (AG Nürnberg)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54c104ea.40...@owncloud.com
