Re: ITP fsmark - bug 655224: License restriction for lib_timing.c DFSG compliant?
Am Dienstag, 10. Januar 2012 schrieb Clark C. Evans: On Tue, Jan 10, 2012, at 11:11 AM, Martin Steigerwald wrote: 11 * additional restriction that results may published only if 12 * (1) the benchmark is unmodified, and 13 * (2) the version in the sccsid below is included in the report. I think with professional legal assistance the intent of this restriction could be phrased as a permissive additional term under GPLv3 section 7(e). What the author seems to be doing is […] Thankfully, Carl and Larry agreed to relicense the file unter GPL2+ without additional restrictions. I added their note with sanitized mail addresses to the ITP - should be up there soon, dunno why its taking so long to accept my mail. I now plan to add that information to debian/copyright as well and possibly create a patch for the file to change it to GPLv2 that I offer Ric Wheeler for upstream inclusion. That is unless someone advises me to handle this situation differently. Thanks for help, -- Martin Steigerwald - teamix GmbH - http://www.teamix.de gpg: 19E3 8D42 896F D004 08AC A0CA 1E10 C593 0399 AE90 -- 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/20120406.34614...@teamix.de
Re: ITP fsmark - bug 655224: License restriction for lib_timing.c DFSG compliant?
Martin Steigerwald m...@teamix.de writes: Thankfully, Carl and Larry agreed to relicense the file unter GPL2+ without additional restrictions. Great result! Please let upstream know that this is appreciated. I now plan to add that information to debian/copyright as well and possibly create a patch for the file to change it to GPLv2 that I offer Ric Wheeler for upstream inclusion. That is unless someone advises me to handle this situation differently. That sounds fine. Does that mean the entire work is now under a GPLv2+ grant? Thank you for acting to improve this situation, and congratulations on such an unproblematic improvement :-) -- \ “Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do | `\it from religious conviction.” —Blaise Pascal (1623–1662), | _o__) Pensées, #894. | 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/87sjjl7s18@benfinney.id.au
ITP fsmark - bug 655224: License restriction for lib_timing.c DFSG compliant?
I was not sure whether to Cc debian-devel. I didn't do it, cause everyone can lookup the current state at the ITP. Please add it to Cc for your answer when you find it approbiate. Hi! On packaging fs_mark I found 8 * Copyright (c) 2000 Carl Staelin. 9 * Copyright (c) 1994-1998 Larry McVoy. 10 * Distributed under the FSF GPL with 11 * additional restriction that results may published only if 12 * (1) the benchmark is unmodified, and 13 * (2) the version in the sccsid below is included in the report. 14 * Support for this development by Sun Microsystems is gratefully acknowledged. in lib_timing.c. Is this restriction DFSG compliant? What are the alternatives when it isn't? I will hold back further packaging efforts until further notice. The current state is at: Vcs-Git: git://git.debian.org/collab-maint/fsmark.git Vcs-Browser: http://git.debian.org/?p=collab-maint/fsmark.git;a=summary It already builds a package, but packaging is not finished for review yet. Thanks, -- Martin Steigerwald - teamix GmbH - http://www.teamix.de gpg: 19E3 8D42 896F D004 08AC A0CA 1E10 C593 0399 AE90 -- 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/20120110.49010...@teamix.de
Re: ITP fsmark - bug 655224: License restriction for lib_timing.c DFSG compliant?
Martin Steigerwald m...@teamix.de writes: On packaging fs_mark I found 8 * Copyright (c) 2000 Carl Staelin. 9 * Copyright (c) 1994-1998 Larry McVoy. 10 * Distributed under the FSF GPL with 11 * additional restriction that results may published only if 12 * (1) the benchmark is unmodified, and 13 * (2) the version in the sccsid below is included in the report. No version of the GPL is specified. That's often taken to mean “whatever version you, the recipient, choose”. I don't know how well that would hold up if challenged. These additions are not compatible with the GPL which, in GPLv3 §10 says “You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License.” Is this restriction DFSG compliant? It's not only not compliant with the DFSG; it's not compliant with the GPL itself. So the recipient has no effective grant of license to redistribute. I hope you can contact upstream and notify them that the terms do not grant effective license to any recipient, and encourage them to remove those additional restrictions. -- \ “The cost of education is trivial compared to the cost of | `\ ignorance.” —Thomas Jefferson | _o__) | 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/87r4z79700@benfinney.id.au
Re: ITP fsmark - bug 655224: License restriction for lib_timing.c DFSG compliant?
Am Dienstag, 10. Januar 2012 schrieb Ben Finney: Martin Steigerwald m...@teamix.de writes: On packaging fs_mark I found 8 * Copyright (c) 2000 Carl Staelin. 9 * Copyright (c) 1994-1998 Larry McVoy. 10 * Distributed under the FSF GPL with 11 * additional restriction that results may published only if 12 * (1) the benchmark is unmodified, and 13 * (2) the version in the sccsid below is included in the report. No version of the GPL is specified. That's often taken to mean “whatever version you, the recipient, choose”. I don't know how well that would hold up if challenged. These additions are not compatible with the GPL which, in GPLv3 §10 says “You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License.” Is this restriction DFSG compliant? It's not only not compliant with the DFSG; it's not compliant with the GPL itself. So the recipient has no effective grant of license to redistribute. I hope you can contact upstream and notify them that the terms do not grant effective license to any recipient, and encourage them to remove those additional restrictions. Okay, so it couldn't even be distributed in non-free, when I understand this correctly. I will try to find out mail addresses of the upstream authors and contact them. Thanks, -- Martin Steigerwald - teamix GmbH - http://www.teamix.de gpg: 19E3 8D42 896F D004 08AC A0CA 1E10 C593 0399 AE90 -- 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/201201101243.09249...@teamix.de
Re: ITP fsmark - bug 655224: License restriction for lib_timing.c DFSG compliant?
Martin Steigerwald m...@teamix.de writes: Okay, so it couldn't even be distributed in non-free, when I understand this correctly. That's my understanding, yes. No recipient has an effective grant of license given the text you've shown. I will try to find out mail addresses of the upstream authors and contact them. When you do, please encourage them to use the license grant equivalent to that shown in the GPLv3 itself, in “How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs”. Thank you for your efforts to improve this situation. -- \ “The long-term solution to mountains of waste is not more | `\ landfill sites but fewer shopping centres.” —Clive Hamilton, | _o__)_Affluenza_, 2005 | 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/87ipkj8fvq@benfinney.id.au
Re: ITP fsmark - bug 655224: License restriction for lib_timing.c DFSG compliant?
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012, at 11:11 AM, Martin Steigerwald wrote: 11 * additional restriction that results may published only if 12 * (1) the benchmark is unmodified, and 13 * (2) the version in the sccsid below is included in the report. I think with professional legal assistance the intent of this restriction could be phrased as a permissive additional term under GPLv3 section 7(e). What the author seems to be doing is treating SCCSID as a trademark of sorts and wanting to restrict how this trademark is used in published results. So long as the author is OK with someone making a derived work and publishing results from that work using some other name, then probably there is probably a reasonable compromise here. IANAL, TINLA Clark -- 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/1326227738.9152.140661021749...@webmail.messagingengine.com
