Re: Consensus about the Academic Free License (AFL) v3.0
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org wrote: Here are a few comments about the license. - point 3) is poorly worded, but assuming it is well-intented, it is Free. I would strongly disagree here. Requiring documentation of any sort in addition to the source code is a big step. This is not a minor thing. - The Attribution Notice sounds a bit like an invariant section, but it is also very similar to the NOTICE file from the Apache License, which is Free. It is somewhat different. The Apache license only requires you to preserve attribution notices from the NOTICE file. AFL requires preserving any descriptive text identified therein as an Attribution Notice. There is no requirement that the text actually be an attribution notice. So maybe it is OK as long as there are only attributions in the Attribution Notice. Cheers, Walter Landry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150612.142252.589075240808081958.wlan...@caltech.edu
Re: Consensus about the Academic Free License (AFL) v3.0
Ángel González keis...@gmail.com wrote: On 12/06/15 23:22, Walter Landry wrote: Charles Plessyple...@debian.org wrote: Here are a few comments about the license. - point 3) is poorly worded, but assuming it is well-intented, it is - Free. I would strongly disagree here. Requiring documentation of any sort in addition to the source code is a big step. This is not a minor thing. I don't think requiring that some documentation is provided with the source code, makes it unfree. Of course it does. Mandating a minimum quality before releasing things may be good software practice, but it is decidely unfree. This license prevents a certain class of modifications that, in the original author's eyes, makes things worse. But later people may disagree in good faith. For example, suppose that there is documentation, but it is out of date to the point where it is misleading. This license prevents removing that misleading documentation. Even if you write new documentation, you have to distribute the old documentation as well. Cheers, Walter Landry
Re: Consensus about the Academic Free License (AFL) v3.0
On 12/06/15 23:22, Walter Landry wrote: Charles Plessyple...@debian.org wrote: Here are a few comments about the license. - point 3) is poorly worded, but assuming it is well-intented, it is Free. I would strongly disagree here. Requiring documentation of any sort in addition to the source code is a big step. This is not a minor thing. I don't think requiring that some documentation is provided with the source code, makes it unfree. However, it could be intended to mean anything from Please don't strip comments from the code or Keep the doc/ folder from the repository when producing a src tarball to Include any documentation ever written related to modifying the original work (a patch howto, an emacs manual?). If the licensor has a copy of Knuth's TAOCP (ie. it's available documentation), and it describes something on-topic for modifying the original work (eg. the work uses linked lists, described in Chapter 2) then the Licensor agrees to provide a machine-readable copy of TAOCP. ∎ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/557b7d1c.8070...@gmail.com
Re: Is libav's current packaging scheme OK for Debian?
(CCing Bálint again, see previous mail in https://lists.debian.org/557459e3.6090...@debian.org) On 07/06/15 16:49, Simon McVittie: On 07/06/15 14:19, Bálint Réczey wrote: The question now is how we should interpret DFSG with regard to Live DVD-s. Should we stop packaging Libav (and later FFmpeg) in the current scheme because it allows preinstalling hedgewars (GPLv2 only) with libavcodec-extra-56 making the DVD violating the license of the packages or let this be a concern for Live DVD creators? The thing that is not allowed is either distributing a derivative work of hedgewars source code with additional restrictions beyond those of the GPL-2, or distributing a derivative work of libav source code with additional restrictions beyond those of either GPL-2 or GPL-3. The hedgewars binary is clearly a derivative work of hedgewars source and, if you believe the FSF's assertions about dynamic linking, libav source (via the libavcodec56 GPL-2+ binaries, to which it links). I find it hard to justify how the hedgewars binary could possibly be a derivative work of libavcodec-extra-56, given that libavcodec-extra-56 was not involved anywhere in the preparation of the hedgewars binary, which (presumably) only uses published interfaces from libavcodec56. Those interfaces happen to be compatible with those found in libavcodec-extra-56. You don't need the library source either for linking to a GPL library with dlopen(3). Still, the final program is considered [by the FSF] a derivative work of the library. This looks very similar to libreadline issues, see http://clisp.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/clisp/clisp/doc/Why-CLISP-is-under-GPL On the other hand, building with libavcodec56 but running with libavcodec-extra-56 would be similar to the psql libreadline workaround (bug 603599), currently used in Debian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/557b8680.8020...@gmail.com
