On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 18:33:32 -0400 Nicholas D Steeves wrote: [...] > Adrian Bunk <b...@debian.org> writes: > > > On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 03:38:57PM -0400, Nicholas D Steeves wrote: > >>... > >> * Neither name of the company nor the names of its contributors may be > >> used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without > >> specific prior written permission. > >> > >> I'm not 100% certain that bundling dprof2calltree with kcachegrind > >> constitutes a "product[s] derived from this software", because I'm also of > >> the opinion that bundling != derivation, but it seems like a lawyer might > >> argue the it does.
Personally I would agree that bundling is different from creating a "derived product". But, of course, there's some room for interpretation (especially in a court...). > >> So kcachegrind and any distributions' package would also need written > >> persmission from OmniTI Computer Consulting. Only if they want to use the "OmniTI Computer Consulting" company name (or the name of possible contributors) in order to endorse or promote their products. And only as long as these products are deemed to be derived from dprof2calltree, as said above. > >>... > > > > You are arguing the 3-Clause BSD License would be non-free? > > > > No, because dprof2calltree is modified 4-Clause BSD. Well, as far as I can say, the 4-clause BSD license is considered acceptable for Debian main. It is also [considered] a free software license by the FSF, although it is considered GPL-incompatible, ugly and strongly recommended against (for people who are choosing a license to release new software under). [considered]: <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OriginalBSD> > > > On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 03:53:48PM -0400, Nicholas D Steeves wrote: > >>... > >> At the very least, it appears that the advertising clauses make > >> dprof2calltree not DFSG-free, > > > > It does not: > > https://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ > > > >> because they fail the "desert island test". > >>... > > > > It does not. > > > > If you choose to advertise the use of this software on your desert > > island, you have to include the acknowledgement in your advertisement. > > > > It fails the "desert island test" because > > 1. Any mention of the features or use of this software requires > user-facing display of the text "This product includes software > developed by OmniTI Computer Consulting". This needs to be done, in order to comply with the license. And it is the OAC (Obnoxious Advertising Clause), the actual reason why the 4-clause BSD license is GPL-incompatible. [OAC]: <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/bsd.html> > > 2. OmniTI Computer Consulting's name cannot be used to "without specific > prior written permission" It can be used in the limited text "This product includes software developed by OmniTI Computer Consulting", since the OAC mandates the display of this acknowledgment. You have specific prior written permission to display that acknowledgment: you have this permission in the very license text. Actually you have an obligation to do so. Without additional specific written permission, you cannot use the company name in other ways, to endorse or promote derived products. At least, this is the (not self-contradictory) interpretation that I believe it has always been intended for the 4-clause BSD license... > > The desert island does not have the paper snailmail service required to > fulfil #2 (4th clause of the license). I think the 4-clause BSD license does *not* fail the desert island test. However, it is clear that the 4-clause BSD license is GPL-incompatible. It would therefore be safer to not include 4-clause BSD licensed material in a package where other parts (or libraries) are under the GNU GPL. Even though, one might argue that the converter is just bundled with the rest, without having any derivation or linking relationship with GPL-licensed material... What I would recommend in this case is one of the following actions (in descending order of preference): • try and get in touch with OmniTI Computer Consulting and persuade them to re-license the dprof2calltree converter under the terms of the 3-clause BSD license (which does not include the deprecated OAC and is indeed GPL-compatible), but persuade them on the ground of GPL-incompatibility, deprecation, and practical issues of the OAC (not on the ground of a DFSG-freeness issue, since there is no such issue!) • try and find a GPL-compatible replacement for dprof2calltree • drop dprof2calltree from package kcachegrind, while waiting for a better resolution for the issue I hope this helps. Bye. -- 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
pgpTBQJFzOxCm.pgp
Description: PGP signature
