the new IglooFTP license
[To: programmers listed as IglooFTP contributors] [Cc: to debian-legal mailing list] Hello, sorry for bothering you about what you might consider a quite futile issue. As you might know, Jean-Marc Jacquet released a new 'PRO' version of his ftp software IglooFTP. The main point is that not only it has a non-free license, but sources aren't even distributed any more: http://www.littleigloo.org/iglooftp.php3 I also noticed that Jean-Marc has removed all traces of the GPLed 0.6.1 release from his website; the download section at http://www.littleigloo.org/softwares_fr.html#IGLOOFTP leads to broken links. But the GPLed 0.6.1 version still exists; it is in the source tree of the Debian distribution, for instance. Moreover, Jean-Marc re-released 0.6.1 under the Artistic license, which I don't know if he is allowed to do without changing the version number. Meanwhile, he implemented Igor's patch for VMS to one of those two 0.6.1 versions. Although I do not use IglooFTP very often, I am quite disappointed by this license change because: * I don't understand why Jean-Marc decided to make IglooFTP non-free if he only intends to provide email support. Anyone knowing the former versions' source code and/or having used IglooFTP as well might do the same. * this new version of IglooFTP won't be available for the Debian distribution. * the new version of IglooFTP crashes on my computer. There is no way I can fix it without having the source code. I will have to PAY for the registered version to be able to get support for a crash-free version ! So, what I intend to do is to ask Jean-Marc why he released his program under a non-free license, and whether he agrees to change his mind. Before that, I would like to know: - was Jean-Marc allowed to release IglooFTP 0.6.1 under the GPL, and later release the very same version under a different license ? - what license was Igor's patch released under ? - did the other contributors provide patches or just ideas ? It they were patches, what license were they released under ? - was Jean-Marc allowed to use those patches in the non-free version of IglooFTP ? Thanks a lot for your information, Sam. -- Samuel Hocevar [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.via.ecp.fr/~sam/ echo what is the universe|tr a-z 0-7-0-729|sed 's/9.//g;s/-/+/'|bc
Re: the new IglooFTP license
Samuel Hocevar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [...former license was GPL...] Moreover, Jean-Marc re-released 0.6.1 under the Artistic license, which I don't know if he is allowed to do without changing the version number. Meanwhile, he implemented Igor's patch for VMS to one of those two 0.6.1 versions. [...] Before that, I would like to know: - was Jean-Marc allowed to release IglooFTP 0.6.1 under the GPL, and later release the very same version under a different license ? If he owns the copyright, he can release it under whatever licenses he wants. Copyright owners can offer any sets of terms they care to. Note that he can't prevent anyone from continuing to use and distribute the GPL version. -- MONO - Monochrome Emulation This field is used to store your favorite bit. --FreeVGA Attribute Controller Reference
Re: xforms exception for xmysqladmin needed?
Martin Bialasinski wrote: I want to take xmysqladmin from Brian Almeida. There is a open bug, that the license needs the xforms exception. The license is: - I reserve the copyright to xMySQLadmin. However, you are permitted to use and distribute xMySQLadmin, provided that you (a) distribute it with the full sources, and (b) that you leave this documentation and copyright notice intact. - The bugreport says: We don't distribute with full source, so we're not allowed to distribute it? However picks up this package should try to obtain the same license change as xmysql, or package the source separately as done with the tetex-src package. Thanks, Peter Galbraith I do not agree on the point that full sources also includes the source of the widgetset it uses. That's not what I meant. I meant that we ship a binary-only package that does not contain sources. TeTeX has binaries with such a license saying that we must also ship sources, and that requirement is met with the tetex-src package. See: http://www.debian.org/Packages/stable/tex/tetex-src.html Now that I think of it some more, the xmysqladmin license says that we must distribute it _with_ source (meaning that sources must accompany the binary?) so it sounds like you might need a /usr/doc/xmysqladmin/src directory tree to comply. The alternative, as I said in the bug report, is to seek a license change. One such license that the upstream author might agree with is GPL plus an XForms exemption clause, similar to other GPL'ed XForms packages: You may link this software with XForms (Copyright (C) by T.C. Zhao and Mark Overmars) and distribute the resulting binary, under the restrictions in clause 3 of the GPL, even though the resulting binary is not, as a whole, covered by the GPL. (You still need a license to do so from the owner(s) of the copyright for XForms; see the XForms copyright statement). If a derivative no longer requires XForms, you may use the unsupplemented GPL as its license by deleting this paragraph and therefore removing this exemption for XForms. Could you tell me who is right on this? Do you not agree that we are breaking the license with a binary-only package? Perhaps my interpretation is wrong? Ciao, Martin [ Please Cc: me on answers, I am not subscribed ] Peter
Re: xforms exception for xmysqladmin needed?
** Peter == Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Peter That's not what I meant. I meant that we ship a binary-only Peter package that does not contain sources. A Debian package consists of the binary- and the source package. Together, they form the version of a program we distribute. So we do distribute xmysqladmin with full sources, just as the license demands. Peter Now that I think of it some more, the xmysqladmin license says Peter that we must distribute it _with_ source (meaning that sources Peter must accompany the binary?) so it sounds like you might need a Peter /usr/doc/xmysqladmin/src directory tree to comply. To this, I can not agree. We distribute xmysqladmin with the sources. It doesn't say a user has to install them. Peter Do you not agree that we are breaking the license with a Peter binary-only package? Perhaps my interpretation is wrong? No, I do not agree. We do not distribute it without the sources. I officialy seek a consensus and review from debian-legal about this. If I don't get a official decision on this, or debian-legal shows no interest in this (mails from Peter don't count in this) in seven days, I will close with the report as a non-bug. Peter, please don't take this personally, I just don't agree on this legal interpretation, and I want an authorative decision, as this is a release critical bug. Ciao, Martin [ Please Cc: me on further mail ]
Re: xforms exception for xmysqladmin needed?
** Peter == Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Peter That's not what I meant. I meant that we ship a binary-only Peter package that does not contain sources. Martin Bialasinski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A Debian package consists of the binary- and the source package. Together, they form the version of a program we distribute. So we do distribute xmysqladmin with full sources, just as the license demands. Careful here. Many cdrom vendors ship binaries without sources. The GPL makes explicit provisions for this case, but xforms isn't using the GPL. -- Raul
Re: xforms exception for xmysqladmin needed?
Martin Bialasinski wrote: ** Peter == Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Peter That's not what I meant. I meant that we ship a binary-only Peter package that does not contain sources. A Debian package consists of the binary- and the source package. Together, they form the version of a program we distribute. So we do distribute xmysqladmin with full sources, just as the license demands. Just to be clear, the license says: I reserve the copyright to xMySQLadmin. However, you are permitted to use and distribute xMySQLadmin, provided that you (a) distribute it with the full sources, and (b) that you leave this documentation and copyright notice intact. It doesn't say you may distribute full sources _separately_. I agree that the GPL has similar wording, althought it uses the word `Accompany with ... source code', which can be argued to mean a separate package is allowed as long as it's available. The GPL also has a `written orfer' clause which CD vendors can use if they so desire. Peter Now that I think of it some more, the xmysqladmin license says Peter that we must distribute it _with_ source (meaning that sources Peter must accompany the binary?) so it sounds like you might need a Peter /usr/doc/xmysqladmin/src directory tree to comply. To this, I can not agree. We distribute xmysqladmin with the sources. It doesn't say a user has to install them. Peter Do you not agree that we are breaking the license with a Peter binary-only package? Perhaps my interpretation is wrong? No, I do not agree. We do not distribute it without the sources. Perhaps Christoph Martin can tell us which wording prompted him to package tetex-src? Was it more specific? I officialy seek a consensus and review from debian-legal about this. If I don't get a official decision on this, or debian-legal shows no interest in this (mails from Peter don't count in this) :-) in seven days, I will close with the report as a non-bug. Peter, please don't take this personally, I just don't agree on this legal interpretation, and I want an authorative decision, as this is a release critical bug. I don't take this personally. Neither should you. It's a release critical bug, but I have offered a solution (even two, as you're going to need to contact the author about xmysql's license anyway, unless that's a different upstream author). There's no need to brush this aside too quickly. There is no immediate threat to remove the package from the archive. This is not the first package to have an ambiguously phrased license that needs clarification. Peter -- Peter Galbraith, research scientist [EMAIL PROTECTED] Maurice Lamontagne Institute, Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada P.O. Box 1000, Mont-Joli Qc, G5H 3Z4 Canada. 418-775-0852 FAX: 775-0546 6623'rd GNU/Linux user at the Counter - http://counter.li.org/
Re: xforms exception for xmysqladmin needed?
** Peter == Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Peter It doesn't say you may distribute full sources _separately_. It doesn't say, the binary and the sources have to be in the same archive file. In fact, it doesn't say anything about archive files (or similar). The entity in which xmysqladmin is distributed by Debian are out archives. And they contain the source. Peter I don't take this personally. Neither should you. It's a Peter release critical bug, but I have offered a solution (even two, Peter as you're going to need to contact the author about xmysql's Peter license anyway, unless that's a different upstream author). It has. He agreed to a addendum. And I got agrrement from the xisp author as well. But the xmysqladmin license is perfectly free in my eyes, and I decline to ask him to change the license to GPL + addendum on these grounds. Peter There's no need to brush this aside too quickly. There is no Peter immediate threat to remove the package from the archive. There is. Remember, we want to freeze. I have been asked to provide comments about the bug, and if potato can be released without it. I understand the reasons. The release manager wants to freeze, when the count of release critical bugs for the essential packages has dropped to some level acceptable by him. At this point, packages with a bug like xmysqladmin has are likely to be removed. Therefore, a judgement has to be done quickly. Ciao, Martin
