Licensing of package nauty
Nauty [1] is pretty much the standard software for graph isomorphism testing, and is used by a several other pieces of research software (e.g. polymake, which I have ITPed [2]). Unfortunately from the Debian point of view, the distribution conditions are somewhat restrictive. Copyright (1984-2007) Brendan McKay. All rights reserved. Permission is hereby given for use and/or distribution with the exception of sale for profit or application with nontrivial military significance. You must not remove this copyright notice, and you must document any changes that you make to this program. This software is subject to this copyright only, irrespective of any copyright attached to any package of which this is a part. Absolutely no guarantees or warranties are made concerning the suitability, correctness, or any other aspect of this program. Any use is at your own risk. I can ask the author if would distribute under some DFSG free license, but in the case that he declines, is there any other clarification needed before it can be included in non-free? David PS no-need to CC me, I'll follow the discussion via gmane [1] http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/nauty/ [2] http://bugs.debian.org/461976 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Licensing of package nauty
On Thu Jan 24 09:35, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Copyright (1984-2007) Brendan McKay. All rights reserved. Permission is hereby given for use and/or distribution with the exception of sale for profit or application with nontrivial military significance. You must not remove this copyright notice, and you must document any changes that you make to this program. This software is subject to this copyright only, irrespective of any copyright attached to any package of which this is a part. Absolutely no guarantees or warranties are made concerning the suitability, correctness, or any other aspect of this program. Any use is at your own risk. I can ask the author if would distribute under some DFSG free license, but in the case that he declines, is there any other clarification needed before it can be included in non-free? This looks like it gives us permission to distribute it in non-free if you can get it licenced under a DFSG-compatible licence. Matt -- Matthew Johnson signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Licensing of package nauty
On Jan 24, 2008 8:35 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Copyright (1984-2007) Brendan McKay. All rights reserved. Permission is hereby given for use and/or distribution with the exception of sale for profit or application with nontrivial military significance. This is totally non-free, alas. It does not allow for modification of the software, prohibits commercial sale (thus making it impossible to distribute as part of a Debian DVD or CD set) and contains a serious use restriction (against nontrivial military significance, whatever *that* means). You must not remove this copyright notice, and you must document any changes that you make to this program. That bit's OK. This software is subject to this copyright only, irrespective of any copyright attached to any package of which this is a part. I'm a bit unclear as to what this means. The author seems to think that the notice itself is the copyright, so when he says the subject is subject to this copyright only, I assume he means subject to this copyright *notice* only. That's probably OK, though it could cause some compatibility problems if combined with GPLed software. I can ask the author if would distribute under some DFSG free license, but in the case that he declines, is there any other clarification needed before it can be included in non-free? I don't think any clarification is needed for inclusion in non-free, assuming that the no sale for profit wording is OK for non-free. John (TINLA) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Licensing of package nauty
On Jan 24, 2008 9:47 AM, Matthew Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This looks like it gives us permission to distribute it in non-free if you can get it licenced under a DFSG-compatible licence. I assume you mean if you *can't* get it licensed under a DFSG-compatible licence. On that basis, I agree (assuming that the no sale for profit wording is OK for non-free - not sure what the policy is for non-free). John (TINLA) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Licensing of package nauty
On 11274 March 1977, Matthew Johnson wrote: I can ask the author if would distribute under some DFSG free license, but in the case that he declines, is there any other clarification needed before it can be included in non-free? This looks like it gives us permission to distribute it in non-free if you can get it licenced under a DFSG-compatible licence. Err, what? If its dfsg compatible then its fine for main. The current license is idiotic but acceptable for non-free. -- bye Joerg pasc man pasc the AMD64 camp is not helped by the list of people supporting it pasc when nerode is on your side, you know you're doing something wrong -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
