Bug#440253: inform 6 license inquiry

[Ben Finney]

On 01-Dec-2014, Ben Finney wrote:
> Do either of those give us enough to package a complete Inform 6
> (compiler and standard library) in Debian under free software terms?

I have announced  my Intent To
Package Inform6 for Debian.

The original intent of this bug report, to package the fundamentally
different Inform 7 system, should now be a RFP for that package. I
will reassign this bug report accordingly.

-- 
 \   “Anyone who puts a small gloss on [a] fundamental technology, |
  `\  calls it proprietary, and then tries to keep others from |
_o__)   building on it, is a thief.” —Tim O'Reilly, 2000-01-25 |
Ben Finney 


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#440253: inform 6 license inquiry

[Ben Finney]

On 07-Oct-2014, Joachim Breitner wrote:

 I think the explanation is
 https://github.com/DavidKinder/Inform6/commit/cb81f1045fcb445ae2d160c13979b61abec52b6f
 which is is probably good enough. (It could be better, e.g. a notice in
 each and every file... but hey, at leas something to work with)

Another lack is insufficient clarify to know what it is that is
actually licensed. The text added in that commit begins:

Inform 6 is published under the original Inform licence (see the
Inform Designer's Manual, fourth edition, 2001), or under the
Artistic License 2.0, at the user's choice.

without clarifying what constitutes “Inform 6”.


Over at bug#484336 URL:https://bugs.debian.org/484336#30, we learn
that a some different repositories have more specific license terms for
what is also presumably Inform 6.

At URL:https://github.com/DavidGriffith/inform6unix, which declares
URL:https://github.com/DavidGriffith/inform6unix/blob/master/VERSION
it is “Inform version 6.32, library version 6/11.”, we see:

The compiler and standard library for Inform6 are licensed under
1) The traditional Inform license as described by the DM4, or
2) The Artistic License 2.0 (see ARTISTIC).

The user is free to choose which license to accept, i.e., free to choose
either set of terms and conditions.


URL:https://github.com/DavidGriffith/inform6unix/commit/0088b76941a2c5b44b7491fb239730259dd6974d

At URL:https://github.com/DavidGriffith/inform6lib, which declares
URL:https://github.com/DavidGriffith/inform6lib/blob/master/README.txt
that “This is version 6/12 of the Inform Library”, we see:

The Inform 6 Library is licensed under either
1) The traditional Inform license as described by the DM4, or
2) The Artistic License 2.0 (see ARTISTIC).

The user is free to choose which license to accept, i.e., free to choose
either set of terms and conditions.


URL:https://github.com/DavidGriffith/inform6lib/commit/c676cda8a96829afb58f4660e1392dbae9d732bc

Do either of those give us enough to package a complete Inform 6
(compiler and standard library) in Debian under free software terms?

-- 
 \  “My interest is in the future, as I am going to spend the rest |
  `\  of my life there.” —Charles F. Kettering |
_o__)  |
Ben Finney b...@benfinney.id.au


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#440253: inform 6 license inquiry

[Ben Finney]

On 31-Aug-2011, Joachim Breitner wrote:
 […] I pointed it out to them that it would be nice if the license
 could be included in the source repo itself:
 https://github.com/DavidKinder/Inform6/issues/1

That report was closed the following year, without any explanation.

Could you re-start the discussion, preferably on that same upstream
bug report? If requests to get a clear grant of license are rejected,
we should at least have a clear rationale from the copyright holder
recorded at that bug report.

(I neither have nor want a GitHub account).

-- 
 \ “I cannot conceive that anybody will require multiplications at |
  `\   the rate of 40,000 or even 4,000 per hour …” —F. H. Wales, 1936 |
_o__)  |
Ben Finney b...@benfinney.id.au


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#440253: inform 6 license inquiry

[Joachim Breitner]

Hi,


Am Dienstag, den 07.10.2014, 09:09 +1100 schrieb Ben Finney:
 On 31-Aug-2011, Joachim Breitner wrote:
  […] I pointed it out to them that it would be nice if the license
  could be included in the source repo itself:
  https://github.com/DavidKinder/Inform6/issues/1
 
 That report was closed the following year, without any explanation.
 
 Could you re-start the discussion, preferably on that same upstream
 bug report? If requests to get a clear grant of license are rejected,
 we should at least have a clear rationale from the copyright holder
 recorded at that bug report.
 
 (I neither have nor want a GitHub account).

I think the explanation is
https://github.com/DavidKinder/Inform6/commit/cb81f1045fcb445ae2d160c13979b61abec52b6f
which is is probably good enough. (It could be better, e.g. a notice in
each and every file... but hey, at leas something to work with)

Greetings,
Joachim
-- 
Joachim nomeata Breitner
Debian Developer
  nome...@debian.org | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: F0FBF51F
  JID: nome...@joachim-breitner.de | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Bug#440253: inform 6 license inquiry

[Ben Finney]

On 07-Oct-2014, Joachim Breitner wrote:
 I think the explanation is
 https://github.com/DavidKinder/Inform6/commit/cb81f1045fcb445ae2d160c13979b61abec52b6f
 which is is probably good enough.

Thanks. Could you modify the upstream bug report so that it shows the
bug is resolved by that commit? Currently the report gives no
indication why it was closed.

-- 
 \ “Sittin' on the fence, that's a dangerous course / You can even |
  `\   catch a bullet from the peace-keeping force” —Dire Straits, |
_o__)   _Once Upon A Time In The West_ |
Ben Finney b...@benfinney.id.au


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#440253: inform 6 license inquiry

[Joachim Breitner]

Hi,

just for the record, the inform 6 code has been put in a github
repository https://github.com/DavidKinder/Inform6 linked from
http://inform7.com/sources/i6n/. Only the latter specifies the license
(AL 2.0), but I pointed it out to them that it would be nice if the
license could be included in the source repo itself:
https://github.com/DavidKinder/Inform6/issues/1

So lets hope that the inform 7 release will happen soon, and that we can
have all of inform in Debian main.

Greetings,
Joachim

-- 
Joachim nomeata Breitner
Debian Developer
  nome...@debian.org | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C
  JID: nome...@joachim-breitner.de | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part