On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 01:51:40PM -0700, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > Luca Falavigna escreveu isso aí: > > Il 14/09/2011 22:48, Cédric Boutillier ha scritto: > > > The license has two paragraphs, and authorizes distribution in one of > > > the two following cases: > > > > > > *either: you are not allowed to modify and keep the same license and > > > copyright assignment (that is the clause you mention) > > > > > > *or: you can modify, edit, alter, but in that case, provided you do not > > > mention it comes from the initial file. > > > > Let's quote the important bits here: > > > > ======================================================================== > > Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a > > copy of this documentation file, to create their own derivative works > > from the content of this document to use, copy, publish, distribute, > > sublicense, and/or sell the derivative works, and to permit others to do > > the same, provided that the derived work is not represented as being a > > copy or version of this document. > > ======================================================================== > > > > The last sentence states you can create your derivative work provided > > it's a derivative work, and it doesn't have to be a copy of the original > > work. Beside the fact this is a bad written clause, problem still stands > > because this file seems a verbatim copy of the original work, thus > > falling into first paragraph.
> Bad wording, indeed. > But it can still be modifed if needed, provided that who modifies it > does the modifications in a way that complies with the license. > In the same way that if you modify GPL-licensed source your modified > version must "carry prominent notices stating that you modified it, and > giving a relevant date", if you modify these sources you have to do this > and that - but for now, we did not modify it. > > Is this file really required, or can it be safely removed? If not, I'm > > not sure how to proceed, perhaps asking upstream to remove license > > notice would fit the clauses listed in the second paragraph. > It is required to the operation of the library. There exists a file with the same name and content, but with a more permissive license, already packaged for Debian in the package 'aglfn'. (There is almost nothing else in that package). I contacted upstream to propose him to use this file instead of the problematic one. In the mean time, if the license from Adobe is still a no-go, I would propose the following workaround: I could repack the source of the package to remove that problematic file, add a dependency on that aglfn and make a 1-line patch to use the good file instead of the bad one in ruby-pdf-reader. What do you think?
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Pkg-ruby-extras-maintainers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-ruby-extras-maintainers
