MIT/Expat with The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil statement
Hi, I'm going to package django-pipeline, that is licensed under MIT/Expat license except one file, that is MIT/Expat too but with one addede sentence: https://github.com/cyberdelia/django-pipeline/blob/master/LICENSE jsmin.py (License-information from the file) This code is original from jsmin by Douglas Crockford, it was translated to Python by Baruch Even. The original code had the following copyright and license. Copyright (©) 2002 Douglas Crockford (www.crockford.com) Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the Software), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED AS IS, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. So it's probably non-free. But at the same time jsmin.py file in package is just wrapper around jsmin: class JSMinCompressor(CompressorBase): JS compressor based on the Python library jsmin (http://pypi.python.org/pypi/jsmin/). def compress_js(self, js): from jsmin import jsmin return jsmin(js) I've a few ideas how to at least workaround it: - repack upstream tarball and replace jsmin.py with stub one that returns original JS without compressing. - don't repack tarball, just patch this jsmin.py using debian/patches so that it will not use jsmin at all Any other suggestions? -- WBR, Dmitry signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: MIT/Expat with The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil statement
2012/4/26 Dmitry Nezhevenko d...@inhex.net: I'm going to package django-pipeline, that is licensed under MIT/Expat license except one file, that is MIT/Expat too but with one addede sentence: https://github.com/cyberdelia/django-pipeline/blob/master/LICENSE jsmin.py (License-information from the file) Ah, the infamous (and evil) jsmin license. So it's probably non-free. Definitely. I've a few ideas how to at least workaround it: - repack upstream tarball and replace jsmin.py with stub one that returns original JS without compressing. Suboptimal but acceptable in main. - don't repack tarball, just patch this jsmin.py using debian/patches so that it will not use jsmin at all Still non-free, not acceptable in main. Any other suggestions? Ask upstream to switch to a sanely licensed JavaScript compressor (there are several). -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- 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/caktje6gthwuv0w+hl86za_ztk1smhxvqnov692gneyedd2i...@mail.gmail.com
Re: MIT/Expat with The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil statement
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 06:24:31PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: I've a few ideas how to at least workaround it: - repack upstream tarball and replace jsmin.py with stub one that returns original JS without compressing. Suboptimal but acceptable in main. I'll follow this way for now - don't repack tarball, just patch this jsmin.py using debian/patches so that it will not use jsmin at all Still non-free, not acceptable in main. Any other suggestions? Ask upstream to switc+h to a sanely licensed JavaScript compressor (there are several). Actually this package provides common API for a few different compressors. So it's up to users to choose which one to use. I've already got response for upstream. File jsmin.py itself in package will have no special license as it's just wrapper around non-free jsmin. So special licensing will be removed from LICENSE. Is it ok to patch such jsmin.py wrapper now to do nothing? -- WBR, Dmitry signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: MIT/Expat with The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil statement
2012/4/26 Dmitry Nezhevenko d...@inhex.net: Actually this package provides common API for a few different compressors. So it's up to users to choose which one to use. I see. I've already got response for upstream. File jsmin.py itself in package will have no special license as it's just wrapper around non-free jsmin. So special licensing will be removed from LICENSE. Sounds good. Is it ok to patch such jsmin.py wrapper now to do nothing? Unfortunatley not, since the non-free jsmin.py will still be distributed in the orig.tar.gz unless you unpack it. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise http://bonedaddy.net/pabs3/ -- 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/CAKTje6GaeboT_uQdwGpa-j=ffupocakki2bqstq_tu5ncbl...@mail.gmail.com
Re: MIT/Expat with The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil statement
On 26/04/12 11:41, Dmitry Nezhevenko wrote: I've already got response for upstream. File jsmin.py itself in package will have no special license as it's just wrapper around non-free jsmin. So special licensing will be removed from LICENSE. Is it ok to patch such jsmin.py wrapper now to do nothing? The requirement for main is that you don't cause any non-free code to be present in the archive: either in the orig.tar.*, the Debian diff/tarball, or the binary packages. (That's why patching out non-free code is not OK, because that still results in Debian distributing one copy of it in the orig.tar.*, and a second copy in the - lines of the Debian diff.) This situation is a bit confusing because it sounds as though there are two files involved, both called jsmin: the library is a translation of the original jsmin non-Python library into Python (Good, not Evil license inherited from the original jsmin non-Python library), and the wrapper wraps it in a common API (Expat license). Is this the case? If so, you must not distribute the library but I think it's OK to distribute the wrapper. If that's the case, and the orig tarball doesn't contain an embedded code copy of the library, then yes I think you can just patch the wrapper. If your orig tarball does contain an embedded code copy of the library, you must still repack the tarball to remove it. S -- 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/4f992b89.5040...@debian.org
Re: MIT/Expat with The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil statement
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 07:01:30PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: 2012/4/26 Dmitry Nezhevenko d...@inhex.net: Actually this package provides common API for a few different compressors. So it's up to users to choose which one to use. I see. I've already got response for upstream. File jsmin.py itself in package will have no special license as it's just wrapper around non-free jsmin. So special licensing will be removed from LICENSE. Sounds good. Is it ok to patch such jsmin.py wrapper now to do nothing? Unfortunatley not, since the non-free jsmin.py will still be distributed in the orig.tar.gz unless you unpack it. Hmm. Really? jsmin.py in pacakge is just some wrapper code to use JSMin with package: --- from pipeline.compressors import CompressorBase class JSMinCompressor(CompressorBase): JS compressor based on the Python library jsmin (http://pypi.python.org/pypi/jsmin/). def compress_js(self, js): from jsmin import jsmin return jsmin(js) --- But some times ago jsmin was distributed in tarball: https://github.com/cyberdelia/django-pipeline/blob/1.1.27/pipeline/compressors/jsmin/jsmin.py And since 1.2 JSMin source was removed from tarball at all. It was replaced with quoted piece of code. The only issue is outdated LICENSE that licenses this wrapper under Good, not Evil license. But once this will be be fixed, it should be ok to patch this wrapper without repacking. Am I right? -- WBR, Dmitry signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: MIT/Expat with The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil statement
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 12:03:37PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote: This situation is a bit confusing because it sounds as though there are two files involved, both called jsmin: the library is a translation of the original jsmin non-Python library into Python (Good, not Evil license inherited from the original jsmin non-Python library), and the wrapper wraps it in a common API (Expat license). Is this the case? If so, you must not distribute the library but I think it's OK to distribute the wrapper. Yes. Currently upstream tarball contains only import jsmin in wrapper and outdated LICENSE file. I'm going to distribute something like this: --- django-pipeline-1.2.2/pipeline/compressors/jsmin.py.orig2012-03-11 13:04:10.0 +0200 +++ django-pipeline-1.2.2/pipeline/compressors/jsmin.py 2012-04-26 13:59:52.749301910 +0300 @@ -7,5 +7,9 @@ (http://pypi.python.org/pypi/jsmin/). def compress_js(self, js): -from jsmin import jsmin -return jsmin(js) +try: +from jsmin import jsmin +return jsmin(js) +except ImportError: +# JSMin is not available +return js So it should be ok to distribute such package.. Thanks -- WBR, Dmitry signature.asc Description: Digital signature
