please reopen ipadic/mecab-ipadic/mozc license review

2011-09-05 Thread Osamu Aoki
Hi,

I have recently uploaded updated ipadic package to non-free following
previous decision.  I would like to ask debian-legal to reopen review of
this ipadic license.  (Dismissing non-standard license is easy thing but
doing so over zealously will hurt us in the end.)

IPADIC is a Japanese word dictionary data designed to be used for the
morphological analysis system to segment and tokenize Japanese text
string into unit words. It provides many additional information
(pronunciation, semantic information, and others). This license was
deemed non-free mostly because of the lack of communication.

This decision caused other important software such as mozc, the best
Japanese input method released by forks in Google, to be deemed
non-free recently based on ipadic case. 

This is very bad situation for the next release  considering its larger
impact.

The license is attached at the bottom of this mail.

== Short summary of states ==

Both
 * http://wiki.debian.org/NonFreeTrackingSystem/SourcePackage/ipadic
 * http://wiki.debian.org/NonFreeTrackingSystem/SourcePackage/mecab-ipadic
states:
  Reason for being non-free: Distributors must follow the law, vague
  restriction on modifications.

The vague restriction on modifications was initially raised by Henning
Makholm but it was dismissed by Paul Hampson in the original discussion.

The you must follow the law clause discussion was a bit superficial. I
agree it was badly written poor English License text but the intent of
the original licensor is clear and should not be interpreted this way.

This legal requirement is no more requirement than 7th term*1 on GPL2.0
prohibiting distribution for patent infringement.  So this should be
acceptable.

The original uploader did not argue fine points and uploaded to
non-free. I have to say that this was not the best move which is
causing pain now. (Arguing on license issue is a bit scarely for
non-native speaker.)

I consider that this IPADIC License with ICOT term needs serious review
and should be considered to be FREE License.

The original discussion started with ITP:
 http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/11/msg00902.html

I have put longer summary at http://wiki.debian.org/IpadicLicense 
with pointers to the original discussion.

If this license is deemed FREE, ipadic/mecab-ipadic/mozc can move to
main.

(ICOT is closed government project.  So asking legal clarification to them
is not our option.)

*1) GPL2.0 has: (Emphasis by me)
  7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or **allegation of patent
  infringement** or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),
  conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
  otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
  excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute
  so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and
  any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not
  distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would
  not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who
  receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you
  could satisfy both it and this License would be to **refrain entirely from
  distribution** of the Program.

This certainly violates over zealous interpretation of DFSG #5 but we
accept this License as FREE.

 IPADIC LICENSE ===
Copyright:

Copyright 2000 Nara Institute of Science
and Technology.  All Rights Reserved.

Use, reproduction, and distribution of this software is permitted.
Any copy of this software, whether in its original form or modified,
must include both the above copyright notice and the following
paragraphs.

Nara Institute of Science and Technology (NAIST),
the copyright holders, disclaims all warranties with regard to this
software, including all implied warranties of merchantability and
fitness, in no event shall NAIST be liable for
any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages
whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an
action of contract, negligence or other tortuous action, arising out
of or in connection with the use or performance of this software.

A large portion of the dictionary entries
originate from ICOT Free Software.  The following conditions for ICOT
Free Software applies to the current dictionary as well.

Each User may also freely distribute the Program, whether in its
original form or modified, to any third party or parties, PROVIDED
that the provisions of Section 3 (NO WARRANTY) will ALWAYS appear
on, or be attached to, the Program, which is distributed substantially
in the same form as set out herein and that such intended
distribution, if actually made, will neither violate or otherwise
contravene any of the laws and regulations of the countries having
jurisdiction over the User or the intended distribution itself.

NO WARRANTY

The program was produced on an experimental basis in the 

Re: Bug#639916: spread: license wackiness

2011-09-05 Thread Francesco Poli
On Mon, 05 Sep 2011 07:32:33 +0200 Florian Weimer wrote:

 * Ken Arromdee:
 
  Unlike the original BSD 4 clause license this adds or software that uses
  this software.
 
 Is it really that much different in effect from the Affero GPL?  It
 may be a bit more far-reaching, but compliance is so much easier.

Frankly speaking, I fail to see the analogies between this license and
the GNU AfferoGPL v3...

And anyway, I personally don't think that works licensed under the
terms of the GNU AfferoGPL v3 should be regarded as complying with the
DFSG. Despite what the ftp-masters say...


-- 
 http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt
 New GnuPG key, see the transition document!
. Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82  3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE


pgpZfLbnftc4B.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: Bug#639916: spread: license wackiness

2011-09-05 Thread Simon McVittie
On Mon, 05 Sep 2011 at 07:32:33 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
 * Ken Arromdee:
  Unlike the original BSD 4 clause license this adds or software that uses
  this software.
 
 Is it really that much different in effect from the Affero GPL?  It
 may be a bit more far-reaching, but compliance is so much easier.

The AGPL requires you to provide (an opportunity to download) Corresponding
Source in the webapp itself, but this license contaminates web pages that
merely *refer to* the webapp; I think that's considerably more onerous.

(If Spread-based webapps had to display the specified text This product...
For more info... in the webapp itself, you're right that that would be less
onerous than the AGPL, but that's not what the license says.)

S


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/20110905183950.ga32...@reptile.pseudorandom.co.uk



Re: Bug#639916: spread: license wackiness

2011-09-05 Thread Ben Finney
Simon McVittie s...@debian.org writes:

 On Mon, 05 Sep 2011 at 07:32:33 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
  * Ken Arromdee:
   Unlike the original BSD 4 clause license this adds or software
   that uses this software.
  
  Is it really that much different in effect from the Affero GPL?  It
  may be a bit more far-reaching, but compliance is so much easier.

 The AGPL requires you to provide (an opportunity to download)
 Corresponding Source in the webapp itself, but this license
 contaminates web pages that merely *refer to* the webapp; I think
 that's considerably more onerous.

Which highlights another problem with this license's wording: the
nefarious word “use”.

It's wholly unclear what set of actions “use this software” is intended
to refer to; it certainly isn't consistently applied in license texts.
So without enumeration of the actions permitted or forbidden, it's
impossible to know whether the work is free software.

-- 
 \  “Some forms of reality are so horrible we refuse to face them, |
  `\ unless we are trapped into it by comedy. To label any subject |
_o__)unsuitable for comedy is to admit defeat.” —Peter Sellers |
Ben Finney


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87k49mob1t@benfinney.id.au