Is mpage DFSG compatible?

[Eriberto Mota]

Hi guys,

I am doing a revision over the orphaned package 'mpage' (in main tree).

When migrating the debian/copyright file to 1.0 format, I did a full
revision in source code and I found two doubtful situations for me.

The first issue is the license used by mpage:

 * Permission is granted to anyone to make or distribute verbatim
 * copies of this document as received, in any medium, provided
 * that this copyright notice is preserved, and that the
 * distributor grants the recipient permission for further
 * redistribution as permitted by this notice.

IMO, this license doesn't allow modify the source code. So, this
license is inadequate.

The second issue is the license of the Contrib/mfix/test.ps file:

%  Copyright (c) 1986-89, ArborText, Inc.
%  Permission to copy is granted so long as the PostScript code
%  is not resold or used in a commercial product.

In this license the rigths to resold or use in a commercial product is
denied. In this case, the solution is remove the file (not essential,
a contrib only).

Well, I need your opinions about what to do. Should be this package
moved to non-free? Must it be removed? Am I wrong?

Thanks in advance.

Regards,

Eriberto

Re: Is mpage DFSG compatible?

[Ángel González]

I have to agree with the interpretations of the given text.

However, in addition to the license in the README file, it also comes 
with COPYING
and COPYING.LESSER files with the text of GPL and LGPL, which seems to 
imply they

wanted to allow distributing the program under (L)GPL.
Seems worth a clarification by the copyright owner, those may be old 
copyright notices,

and they are probably willing to relicense.

That may not be possible for Contrib/mfix/test.ps, but that file could 
be stripped.

Re: Is mpage DFSG compatible?

[Eriberto]

Thanks Riley and Ángel!

Ángel,

The copyright notices in headers should be considered as priority over
licenses inside generical files. So, the upstream intents provided by
generical copyright files shouldn't be considered when packaging and
if the files have headers. I understood your words, but the main
license is non-DFSG (IMHO).

Thanks a lot for your help!

Regards,

Eriberto


2015-10-18 19:06 GMT-02:00 Ángel González :
> I have to agree with the interpretations of the given text.
>
> However, in addition to the license in the README file, it also comes with
> COPYING
> and COPYING.LESSER files with the text of GPL and LGPL, which seems to imply
> they
> wanted to allow distributing the program under (L)GPL.
> Seems worth a clarification by the copyright owner, those may be old
> copyright notices,
> and they are probably willing to relicense.
>
> That may not be possible for Contrib/mfix/test.ps, but that file could be
> stripped.

Re: Is mpage DFSG compatible?

[Riley Baird]

On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 18:23:50 -0200
Eriberto Mota  wrote:

> Hi guys,
> 
> I am doing a revision over the orphaned package 'mpage' (in main tree).
> 
> When migrating the debian/copyright file to 1.0 format, I did a full
> revision in source code and I found two doubtful situations for me.
> 
> The first issue is the license used by mpage:
> 
>  * Permission is granted to anyone to make or distribute verbatim
>  * copies of this document as received, in any medium, provided
>  * that this copyright notice is preserved, and that the
>  * distributor grants the recipient permission for further
>  * redistribution as permitted by this notice.
> 
> IMO, this license doesn't allow modify the source code. So, this
> license is inadequate.
> 
> The second issue is the license of the Contrib/mfix/test.ps file:
> 
> %  Copyright (c) 1986-89, ArborText, Inc.
> %  Permission to copy is granted so long as the PostScript code
> %  is not resold or used in a commercial product.
> 
> In this license the rigths to resold or use in a commercial product is
> denied. In this case, the solution is remove the file (not essential,
> a contrib only).
> 
> Well, I need your opinions about what to do. Should be this package
> moved to non-free? Must it be removed? Am I wrong?

I agree with both of your interpretations.


pgpLMpNFbNvf8.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Is mpage DFSG compatible?

[Eriberto]

2015-10-18 20:11 GMT-02:00 Ángel González :
>
> Kudos to Ben for noticing that old Changelog entry.
>

Yes, yes. Ben was really well.

I will wait new opinions and I will open a serious bug. After this I
will contact the upstream. I was afraid to open the bug without ask
for opinions in debian-legal because the package is in Debian several
years without problems.

Thanks a lot to Riley, Ángel and Ben.

Cheers,

Eriberto

Re: Is mpage DFSG compatible?

[Ángel González]

On 18/10/15 23:27, Eriberto wrote:

Thanks Riley and Ángel!

Ángel,

The copyright notices in headers should be considered as priority over
licenses inside generical files. So, the upstream intents provided by
generical copyright files shouldn't be considered when packaging and
if the files have headers. I understood your words, but the main
license is non-DFSG (IMHO).

Thanks a lot for your help!

Regards,

Eriberto
Sure. I was considering that they probably *intended* it to be available 
under

(L)GPL, and would thus be sympatetic to (properly) license under them.
Not that Debian should solely rely on those files when there is more 
specific

copyright information.

Kudos to Ben for noticing that old Changelog entry.

Re: Source files

[Francesco Poli]

On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 09:02:08 +0200 Vincent Bernat wrote:

>  ❦ 15 octobre 2015 10:26 +1100, Ben Finney  :
[...]
> > There are many cases that are clarified by that
> > definition, to the point of clear resolution.
> 
> The recent discussions on debian-devel@ shows that not everybody agree
> with this definition. Notably, several persons think the source code for
> one project should depend on the user, not on the developer.

Maybe I am misunderstanding you here (I have not read the debian-devel
discussions), but this sounds like a really harmful definition of
source: let's suppose you write a program in C and release the C code
under a DFSG-free license; after that, one user insists that he/she
prefers COBOL over C, and thus he/she claims you have not distributed
source code, unless you make COBOL code available! Your program is
therefore non-free!


-- 
 http://www.inventati.org/frx/
 There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory!
. Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82  3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE


pgp59Ru7Iiw9W.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Source files

[Francesco Poli]

On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 08:57:47 +0900 Charles Plessy wrote:

> Le Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:47:02PM +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit :
> > 
> > I am personally convinced that nowadays the definition of source should
> > *no longer* be regarded as an open question: I think that the most
> > commonly used and accepted definition of source code is the one found
> > in the GNU GPL license.
> 
> Hi Francesco and everybody,
> 
> sorry for drifting that thread further... I can not help adding that, the 
> world
> being in perpetual change, the definition of source will one day become an 
> open
> question again.  My favorite guess is that at some point, it will be argued
> that the commit messages and the revisions of a file are part the source, 
> since
> inspecting them is part of the "preferred" way to modify the file.  But we are
> not there yet...

It may happen in the future, maybe, but please note that it would again
be the "preferred form for making modifications" definition of source.
The only thing that would change is people's preferences...

Anyway, as you say, we are not there yet.


-- 
 http://www.inventati.org/frx/
 There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory!
. Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82  3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE


pgpNedUHvA52e.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Source files

[Francesco Poli]

On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 09:12:21 +0200 Ole Streicher wrote:

[...]
> Yes, this is a nice summary. Thank you very much;

You're welcome!

> would it be possible
> to add it somewhere to Debian (Wiki or so?)

I tend to avoid the Debian Wiki, because it is a licensing mess: almost
nobody cares about adding licensing info to the pages that are created
(in order to make them DFSG-free), hence every Wiki user has the
technical possibility to modify pages, but no legal permission to do so!
I think this is terrible, especially for a project like Debian, which
is *supposed* to care about software freedom, but then *so often*
forgets about it...   :-(

See


for the details.
Among other things, the bug report has been even closed with wrong and
rambling considerations... I think that it should be reopened.

> And (unrelated to Debian)
> may it be possible to submit to the FSF for inclusion? It actually would
> help much for discussion with some upstream about what they are required
> to release.
[...]

I really doubt the FSF would agree with my point of view, especially
with my opinion on applying the same freedom standards to all types of
works, rather than distinguishing programs, documentation, essays,
artistic works, and so forth...


-- 
 http://www.inventati.org/frx/
 There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory!
. Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82  3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE


pgpw8NBaltnFM.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Source files

[Francesco Poli]

On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 09:50:06 +1100 Riley Baird wrote:

> On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 23:47:02 +0200
> Francesco Poli  wrote:
[...]
> > For further details on what I think about the definition of source,
> > anyone interested may read my essay:
> > http://www.inventati.org/frx/essays/softfrdm/whatissource.html
> 
> That's a good essay! Hopefully, something like that will become the
> reference that Debian actually uses in the future.

I am glad you and other people liked it.

> 
> I have some concerns, though:

Some of your concerns have already received responses from someone
else, but let me reply to the following one.

[...]
> > One completely different thing is when nobody has some form of
> > the work any longer. That form cannot be preferred for making
> > modifications, since it no longer exists. In this case, the actual
> > source is the preferred form for making modifications, among the
> > existing ones.
> 
> I write a program in C++ and release the binaries under a free license.
> The binaries are not the source form. But five years later, when I lose
> the USB which contained the only copy of the C++ code, the binaries
> become source.

If the (previously existing) source is really lost, what else can we do?
We have to choose which form is preferred *among the existing ones*.

One can take the binary executable as source, if he/she prefers to use
that form in order to make modifications to the program.

Another possibility is generating another form from one of the existing
forms (for instance: decompile the binary executable and, possibly,
enhance the result by hand, until it becomes readable enough to be
usefully modified). If the newly created form is preferred over the
other existing forms, then it *is* the new source.

-- 
 http://www.inventati.org/frx/
 There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory!
. Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82  3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE


pgp42gK2wVJlf.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Is mpage DFSG compatible?

[Ben Finney]

Eriberto Mota  writes:

> I am doing a revision over the orphaned package 'mpage' (in main tree).
>
> When migrating the debian/copyright file to 1.0 format, I did a full
> revision in source code

Thank you! This is important work to be done by the maintainer of any
package in Debian.

> The first issue is the license used by mpage:
>
>  * Permission is granted to anyone to make or distribute verbatim
>  * copies of this document as received, in any medium, provided
>  * that this copyright notice is preserved, and that the
>  * distributor grants the recipient permission for further
>  * redistribution as permitted by this notice.
>
> IMO, this license doesn't allow modify the source code. So, this
> license is inadequate.

Yes, the permission is restricted to only “verbatim copies”, which
explicitly disallows modification. Lacking that permission means the
work fails DFSG §3 and is non-free.

> The second issue is the license of the Contrib/mfix/test.ps file:
>
> %  Copyright (c) 1986-89, ArborText, Inc.
> %  Permission to copy is granted so long as the PostScript code
> %  is not resold or used in a commercial product.

Yes, there is no clear permission to redistribute (“copy” does not mean
“redistribute copies”), no permission to redistribute modified or
derived works, and explicit denial of permission to use the work for
commercial purposes. Those fail DFSG §1, §2, §3, and §6, making the work
non-free.

> In this case, the solution is remove the file (not essential, a
> contrib only).

That's a valid solution for this file.

If the copyright holder could be contacted, it would be better to obtain
an explicit written free license; but if in your assessment the file is
not needed anyway, it is simpler to remove the file from the source
package.

> Well, I need your opinions about what to do. Should be this package
> moved to non-free? Must it be removed? Am I wrong?

The ‘CHANGES’ file contains an entry under “October  2002”:

October  2002
- Released version 2.5.3
- Start moving mapge into the GPL...

This at least suggests the upstream developer at the time of that entry
intended to explicitly change the license of the whole work to GNU
General Public License.

You could contact the upstream copyright holder, cite that changelog
entry, and request they follow the instructions in GNU GPL v3 to
effectively grant license for every part of the work to all recipients.

There needs to be an explicit written grant of license to the recipient,
preferably in the work itself and not conflicting with any other
notices (so those conflicting notices should be removed by the copyright
holder who wrote them).

-- 
 \   “It's easy to play any musical instrument: all you have to do |
  `\   is touch the right key at the right time and the instrument |
_o__)will play itself.” —Johann Sebastian Bach |
Ben Finney

Re: Source files

[Riley Baird]

> > > One completely different thing is when nobody has some form of
> > > the work any longer. That form cannot be preferred for making
> > > modifications, since it no longer exists. In this case, the actual
> > > source is the preferred form for making modifications, among the
> > > existing ones.
> > 
> > I write a program in C++ and release the binaries under a free license.
> > The binaries are not the source form. But five years later, when I lose
> > the USB which contained the only copy of the C++ code, the binaries
> > become source.
> 
> If the (previously existing) source is really lost, what else can we do?
> We have to choose which form is preferred *among the existing ones*.

We can declare that the source did exist, but it doesn't anymore.

People use open-source software for a variety of reasons. Some people
use it for security reasons. Auditing a program where all copies of the
C++ source no longer exist is exactly as difficult as auditing the
program where all copies of the C++ source are kept secret by the
maintainer.


pgpetyggrvUSM.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Is mpage DFSG compatible?

[Eriberto]

Thanks Riley and Ángel!

Ángel,

The copyright notices in headers should be considered as priority over
licenses inside generical files. So, the upstream intents provided by
generical copyright files shouldn't be considered when packaging and
if the files have headers. I understood your words, but the main
license is non-DFSG (IMHO).

Thanks a lot for your help!

Regards,

Eriberto


2015-10-18 19:06 GMT-02:00 Ángel González :
> I have to agree with the interpretations of the given text.
>
> However, in addition to the license in the README file, it also comes with
> COPYING
> and COPYING.LESSER files with the text of GPL and LGPL, which seems to imply
> they
> wanted to allow distributing the program under (L)GPL.
> Seems worth a clarification by the copyright owner, those may be old
> copyright notices,
> and they are probably willing to relicense.
>
> That may not be possible for Contrib/mfix/test.ps, but that file could be
> stripped.
>
>
>

Re: Is mpage DFSG compatible?

[Charles Plessy]

Le Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 06:23:50PM -0200, Eriberto Mota a écrit :
> 
> When migrating the debian/copyright file to 1.0 format, I did a full
> revision in source code and I found two doubtful situations for me.
> 
> The first issue is the license used by mpage:
> 
>  * Permission is granted to anyone to make or distribute verbatim
>  * copies of this document as received, in any medium, provided
>  * that this copyright notice is preserved, and that the
>  * distributor grants the recipient permission for further
>  * redistribution as permitted by this notice.
> 
> IMO, this license doesn't allow modify the source code. So, this
> license is inadequate.
> 
> The second issue is the license of the Contrib/mfix/test.ps file:
> 
> %  Copyright (c) 1986-89, ArborText, Inc.
> %  Permission to copy is granted so long as the PostScript code
> %  is not resold or used in a commercial product.

Hi Eriberto,

just a side comment since you already had a lot of good answers.

When encountering strange license terms, I always look for them in
codesearch.debian.net.  It can either suggest that the license is not
problematic (for instance if it is found in a large number of high-profile
packages), or it gives the opportunity to correct the error archive-wide.

In the case of mpage, the lines "distributor grants the recipient permission
for further" and "Permission to copy is granted so long as the PostScript code"
are not found in any other package; good !

Cheers,

Charles

-- 
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan