Re: RFC: the new license for IBPP
Francesco Poli wrote: A package that includes a part which is licensed in a non-free manner does *not* comply with the DFSG. I cannot extract that part of FlameRobin source code (namely the IBPP C++ classes) and exercise the freedoms the DFSG guarantee. Therefore, FlameRobin does not meet the DFSG and cannot be in main, according to the SC. You can extract IBPP from FlameRobin and do whatever you want with it as long as it is included in a Hello, World!-probram. Yes, this is a restriction, but is easily worked around. I repeat. My suggestion is: try (harder) to persuade IBPP upstream to adopt the real unmodified Expat license. That way, every concern would vanish. I am trying since November 2005. Not that I have no progress (original license was IDPL - an MPL clone). This is what upstream says about original expat: I know that some people would prefer IBPP to go with the unchanged Expat license (often mistakenly named MIT/BSD license - which is not the exact same thing) because it looks so close to that one. But no, it won't be. IBPP has its own terms. and later: This discussion is over for me. I will have well enough to do with the OSI certification in the coming weeks and months. MJRay, may we have your comments too? Olivier sent me copies of some off-list discussion in which you tend to agree that new license is ok for Debian. Firendly, dam -- Damyan Ivanov Creditreform Bulgaria [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.creditreform.bg/ phone: +359(2)928-2611, 929-3993fax: +359(2)920-0994 mob. +359(88)856-6067 [EMAIL PROTECTED]/Gaim signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: RFC: the new license for IBPP
Damyan Ivanov [EMAIL PROTECTED] MJRay, may we have your comments too? Olivier sent me copies of some off-list discussion in which you tend to agree that new license is ok for Debian. Nice to learn that copyright infringement is alive and well(!) In short, I think it technically meets the letter of the DFSG and may give all required freedom, but contains lawyerbombs and is generally a bit of a pain in the backside. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFC: the new license for IBPP
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Josh Triplett wrote: Damyan Ivanov wrote: === The problematic? clause === Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person or organization (”You”) obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files covered by this license (the “Software”) to use the Software as part of another work; to modify it for that purpose; to publish or distribute it, modified or not, for that same purpose; to permit persons to whom the other work using the Software is furnished to do so; subject to the following conditions: the above copyright notice and this complete and unmodified permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software; You will not misrepresent modified versions of the Software as being the original. === Francesco Poli wrote: What if I want to modify the library itself and distribute the result by itself? This is not permitted, AFAIU. Why have I to be annoyed by this wrap it in some silly container work requirement? Better to adopt the actual Expat license (http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt), IMHO. I see your point and I agree. But the author deliberately modified Expat license to include the above terms. So the questions is: Is this DFSG-free or not? Please bear in mind that IBPP is really to be used in FlameRobin's packaging, not by itself. That particular point, that you only plan to use it with one particular piece of software, has no bearing on DFSG-freeness. I guess my explaination was not clear enough. I follow this re-licensing effort for so long that I tend to omit the details. Sorry. IBPP is released only as source (i.e. a set of C++ classes, no .so, no library). FlameRobin incorporates this released source in its source tree. So we are talking about packaging FlameRobin, which source contains some files licensed under the above terms. The rest of FlameRobin is (soon to be) licensed under unmodified Expat license. And I don't plan to package IBPP in separate package, but only flamerobin.deb (with part of the .orig.tar.gz using tha above license) I am not sure if this makes a difference... This license itself seems highly suboptimal, but it *may* follow the letter of the DFSG: The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license may not require a royalty or other fee for such sale. as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources does indeed permit pieces of software which do not permit solo distribution, since you can always bundle them with a hello world program to make them distributable. (This also makes such licensing relatively worthless.) One question however: does the author intend use the Software as part of another work to imply that the work must incorporate or derive from the Software, or simply that the Software must occur as part of a larger work of some kind, including potentially an aggregate with unrelated programs, such as the Debian distribution? The latter follows the letter of the DFSG; the former places a stronger requirement that I don't believe the DFSG permits. I beleive that something like FlameRobin is sought. (i.e. the former). And this is exactly the context of using the IBPP - as an integral part of another software. I beleive this is not a problem, since the FlameRobin package would satisfy both licensing (original Expath and this modified thingy - the IBPP license) and the Social contract. I mention SC, because of this text: We promise that the Debian system and all its components will be free according to these guidelines.. If we take components to be equal to packages then I beleive[1] the FlameRobin package fits in SC and DFSG. Friendly, dam - -- Damyan Ivanov Creditreform Bulgaria [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.creditreform.bg/ phone: +359(2)928-2611, 929-3993fax: +359(2)920-0994 mob. +359(88)856-6067 [EMAIL PROTECTED]/Gaim -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFELkEpHqjlqpcl9jsRAu/UAJ40sAbELq+CVpOrIqBR5+9wBMazpACcD0Ai bdpG1bJQh4yh+GO64G/l8mI= =NVSq -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFC: the new license for IBPP
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Francesco Poli wrote: On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 09:48:53 +0300 Damyan Ivanov wrote: Please bear in mind that IBPP is really to be used in FlameRobin's packaging, not by itself. I see, but imagine which permissions someone would get, if he/she wanted to extract IBPP from FlameRobin's source... (See also my answer to Josh Triplett) The intention of the author is not to permit the sole usage. IBPP may be used only as part of another software. And this exactly is my intent - - packaging FlameRobin, which contains IBPP. Friendly, dam - -- Damyan Ivanov Creditreform Bulgaria [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.creditreform.bg/ phone: +359(2)928-2611, 929-3993fax: +359(2)920-0994 mob. +359(88)856-6067 [EMAIL PROTECTED]/Gaim -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFELkJvHqjlqpcl9jsRAgZOAJ44Q1NkY6uyp2fj+oHK285vXI/+ugCeLmkm awj8EfLx03lMzDIGFzRNAvE= =TTh6 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFC: the new license for IBPP
On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 09:48:53 +0300 Damyan Ivanov wrote: [...] Francesco Poli wrote: What if I want to modify the library itself and distribute the result by itself? This is not permitted, AFAIU. Then, I don't think the library can be considered DFSG-free... Why have I to be annoyed by this wrap it in some silly container work requirement? Better to adopt the actual Expat license (http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt), IMHO. I see your point and I agree. But the author deliberately modified Expat license to include the above terms. So the questions is: Is this DFSG-free or not? As stated above, I don't think it is... Please bear in mind that IBPP is really to be used in FlameRobin's packaging, not by itself. I see, but imagine which permissions someone would get, if he/she wanted to extract IBPP from FlameRobin's source... -- :-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-) .. Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgp3Jzrjanbuv.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: RFC: the new license for IBPP
Damyan Ivanov wrote: === The problematic? clause === Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person or organization (”You”) obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files covered by this license (the “Software”) to use the Software as part of another work; to modify it for that purpose; to publish or distribute it, modified or not, for that same purpose; to permit persons to whom the other work using the Software is furnished to do so; subject to the following conditions: the above copyright notice and this complete and unmodified permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software; You will not misrepresent modified versions of the Software as being the original. === Francesco Poli wrote: What if I want to modify the library itself and distribute the result by itself? This is not permitted, AFAIU. Why have I to be annoyed by this wrap it in some silly container work requirement? Better to adopt the actual Expat license (http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt), IMHO. I see your point and I agree. But the author deliberately modified Expat license to include the above terms. So the questions is: Is this DFSG-free or not? Please bear in mind that IBPP is really to be used in FlameRobin's packaging, not by itself. That particular point, that you only plan to use it with one particular piece of software, has no bearing on DFSG-freeness. This license itself seems highly suboptimal, but it *may* follow the letter of the DFSG: The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license may not require a royalty or other fee for such sale. as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources does indeed permit pieces of software which do not permit solo distribution, since you can always bundle them with a hello world program to make them distributable. (This also makes such licensing relatively worthless.) One question however: does the author intend use the Software as part of another work to imply that the work must incorporate or derive from the Software, or simply that the Software must occur as part of a larger work of some kind, including potentially an aggregate with unrelated programs, such as the Debian distribution? The latter follows the letter of the DFSG; the former places a stronger requirement that I don't believe the DFSG permits. - Josh Triplett signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: RFC: the new license for IBPP
El jueves, 30 de marzo de 2006 a las 16:33:59 +0300, Damyan Ivanov escribía: Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person or organization (???You???) obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files covered by this license (the ???Software???) to use the Software as part of another work; to modify it for that purpose; It allows to modify the library if it is needed to make it work with other piece of software (for that purpose == to use the Software as part of another work), but that wording does not allow modifying it to improve its performance, for example. This is why writing licenses is tricky :-) -- Jacobo Tarrío | http://jacobo.tarrio.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFC: the new license for IBPP
On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 20:03:53 +0300 Damyan Ivanov wrote: Hi, Jacobo, Jacobo Tarrio wrote: [...] It allows to modify the library if it is needed to make it work with other piece of software (for that purpose == to use the Software as part of another work), but that wording does not allow modifying it to improve its performance, for example. Isn't it permitted to modify the Software for whatever reason as long as it is distributed as a part of a another work? (for that purpose isn't very clear IMO). Or, if the other software requires a super-fast IBPP, then we comply with the license, sicne the modification is made to make it work with the other work. Still unclear. :/ What if I want to modify the library itself and distribute the result by itself? Why have I to be annoyed by this wrap it in some silly container work requirement? Better to adopt the actual Expat license (http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt), IMHO. -- :-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-) .. Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgp1EDzlxHD7I.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: RFC: the new license for IBPP
=== The problematic? clause === Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person or organization (”You”) obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files covered by this license (the “Software”) to use the Software as part of another work; to modify it for that purpose; to publish or distribute it, modified or not, for that same purpose; to permit persons to whom the other work using the Software is furnished to do so; subject to the following conditions: the above copyright notice and this complete and unmodified permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software; You will not misrepresent modified versions of the Software as being the original. === Francesco Poli wrote: What if I want to modify the library itself and distribute the result by itself? This is not permitted, AFAIU. Why have I to be annoyed by this wrap it in some silly container work requirement? Better to adopt the actual Expat license (http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt), IMHO. I see your point and I agree. But the author deliberately modified Expat license to include the above terms. So the questions is: Is this DFSG-free or not? Please bear in mind that IBPP is really to be used in FlameRobin's packaging, not by itself. dam -- Damyan Ivanov Creditreform Bulgaria [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.creditreform.bg/ phone: +359(2)928-2611, 929-3993fax: +359(2)920-0994 mob. +359(88)856-6067 [EMAIL PROTECTED]/Gaim signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
