KDE application relicensing
Hi Debian legal people, I maintan a KDE application, so I have the pleasure of dealing with some GFDL data. Fortunately, the upstream author decided to relicense his work under a dual GFDL/BSDDL license, so it can be included in Debian. However, he is not certain about the wording, so I come here to ask your opinion on the subject. According to his mail, -8-8-- the documentation will include the GFDL notice, followed by: The author of this documentation has also granted you permission to use the content under the terms of the FreeBSD Documentation License (BSDDL), if you so choose. If you wish to allow use of your version of this content only under the terms of the BSDDL, and not to allow others to use your version of this file under the terms of the GFDL, indicate your decision by deleting the GFDL notice and and replacing it with the notice and other provisions required by the GPL. If you do not delete the GFDL notice above, a recipient may use your version of this file under the terms of either the GFDL or the BSDDL. The text of the BSD doc license is included as a link. Will that be sufficient for Debian? Or do you have other wording to suggest? -8-8-- Yes, I know there is a GPL in the middle, I already suggested to replace it by BSDDL. Any other thing that would need to be modified ? I'm not subscribed to the list, so please CC me. Thanks, Regis -- While a monkey can be a manager, it takes a human to be an engineer Erik Zapletal -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: KDE application relicensing
Glenn Maynard said: On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 10:04:23AM -, Regis Boudin wrote: I maintan a KDE application, so I have the pleasure of dealing with some GFDL data. Fortunately, the upstream author decided to relicense his work under a dual GFDL/BSDDL license, so it can be included in Debian. However, he is not certain about the wording, so I come here to ask your opinion on the subject. I know of no common license by the abbreviation BSDDL (and neither does Google). Please attach the license you're referring to. Oops, soory for that. He is relicensing under FreeBSD Documentaion License. I heve no idea where the BSDDL abreviation comes from. Thanks for pointing that. Regis -- Glenn Maynard -- While a monkey can be a manager, it takes a human to be an engineer Erik Zapletal -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: openssl vs. GPL question
Hi everyone, On 6/4/05, Dafydd Harries [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a package Alexandria, written in Ruby, which will depend on a new library in the next version. This library, ruby-zoom, is an LGPL Ruby binding of libyaz. libyaz links to OpenSSL and is, as far as I can tell, under a 2-clause BSD licence. Everything fine so far. But it seems to me that it will be impossible for Alexandria, which is under the GPL, to use ruby-zoom legally as, by doing so, it will be linking against OpenSSL, which is under a GPL-incompatible licence. Am I right in thinking so? It is Debian's historical practice, and the FSF's stance, not to permit this kind of dependency (direct or indirect). I believe strongly, and have adduced plenty of case law to demonstrate, that the FSF's GPL FAQ is in error on this point. I would not say, however, that my opinion represents a debian-legal consensus. See recent debian-legal threads about Quagga, which is in a similar position. My understanding of this issue is based on reading this thread: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/10/msg00113.html If there is indeed a licence problem here, I can see two main solutions: - Try to get libyaz in Debian to link against GnuTLS instead of OpenSSL. - Get the maintainer of Alexandria to make an exception for linking against OpenSSL. The latter is probably a better choice (at least in the short term), since the OpenSSL shim for GNU TLS was added to the GPL (not LGPL) libgnutls-extra. (It's possible that it has since been moved into the LGPL portion, but I don't think so.) While I don't believe in the FSF's theories about linking causing GPL violation (especially in the indirect scenario), it's the Debian way to request a clarification from upstream. I notice that the Tellico package, which is GPL, already links against libyaz. Is this a licence violation? No; but there again, it would probably be best to check with upstream about whether they would mind adding an explicit OpenSSL exemption. Wishlist bug? Sorry to arrive late, I am not on -legal, amd only noticed this thread during one of my usual checking of what's happening around here. I appear to be the maintainer of tellico, so I would like to have a good advice on what to do for this problem. I have CC'ed Robby Stephenson, who is the upstream author of Tellico, so he can know and make a decision about it if he thinks he should. Regards, Regis -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
