Re: Unsure about a License with mandatory attribution clause

2017-06-17 Thread Ben Finney 
Andreas Moog  writes:

> while packaging libml I noticed the following part in a license text:
> (https://github.com/volkszaehler/libsml/blob/master/test/unity/license.txt)
>
>  The end-user documentation included with the redistribution, if any,
>  must include the following acknowledgment: "This product includes
>  software developed for the Unity Project, by Mike Karlesky, Mark
>  VanderVoord, and Greg Williams and other contributors", in the same
>  place and form as other third-party acknowledgments. Alternately,
>  this acknowledgment may appear in the software itself, in the same
>  form and location as other such third-party acknowledgments.

This is more specific, but IMO not more onerous, than attribution
clauses in the BSD licenses.

So the questions to answer, I think, are: Does this restrict the
recipient's freedoms under DFSG?


* Attribution requirement is, in general, considered DFSG-free.

* The clause only takes effect if there is already “end-user
  documentation”. All Debian packages must be distributed with end-user
  documentation; the ‘debian/copyright’ file is part of that, as you
  point out.

* The attribution states a fact that will, I believe, remain true so
  long as the software continues. (Some licenses, e.g. the FDL, require
  preserving statements of fact that are not always true. So it's good
  to consider this question.)

* The clause also allows for the notice to appear “in the same form and
  location as other such third-party acknowledgements”. So, that
  definitely describes the ‘debian/copyright’ file.


My conclusion is that this is a DFSG-free license, with an
unconventionally specific requirement of attribution.

I would prefer that the copyright holders should choose a conventional
well-understood license, but I don't see that this one causes any
specific problem for Debian recipients.

-- 
 \“Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability.” —Edsger W. |
  `\  Dijkstra |
_o__)  |
Ben Finney

Re: Unsure about a License with mandatory attribution clause

2017-06-17 Thread Simon McVittie 
On Sat, 17 Jun 2017 at 12:52:06 +0200, Andreas Moog wrote:
>  The end-user documentation included with the redistribution, if 
>  any, must include the following acknowledgment: "This product 
>  includes software developed for the Unity Project, by Mike Karlesky,
>  Mark VanderVoord, and Greg Williams and other contributors", in 
>  the same place and form as other third-party acknowledgments. 

In Debian, third-party acknowledgements of this form appear in
/usr/share/doc/*/copyright, which is part of the end-user documentation
in /usr/share/doc. So I think this is fine: documenting the license
in /usr/share/doc/*/copyright, which you are already required to do, is
enough to comply with this clause.

(I'm sure we have a lot of software with similar license clauses.)

S

Unsure about a License with mandatory attribution clause

2017-06-17 Thread Andreas Moog 
Hi,

while packaging libml I noticed the following part in a license text:
(https://github.com/volkszaehler/libsml/blob/master/test/unity/license.txt)

 The end-user documentation included with the redistribution, if 
 any, must include the following acknowledgment: "This product 
 includes software developed for the Unity Project, by Mike Karlesky,
 Mark VanderVoord, and Greg Williams and other contributors", in 
 the same place and form as other third-party acknowledgments. 
 Alternately, this acknowledgment may appear in the software 
 itself, in the same form and location as other such third-party 
 acknowledgments.

Now I'm a little bit unsure if this is good for distribution and building 
against in Debian, especially what is considered "end-user documentation".
Is the "end-user documentation" part satisfied by providing the license in 
/usr/share/doc//copyright?

Thanks for your help!

-- 
PGP-encrypted mails preferred
PGP Fingerprint: 74CD D9FE 5BCB FE0D 13EE 8EEA 61F3 4426 74DE 6624


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Unsure about a License with mandatory attribution clause

2017-06-17 Thread Andreas Moog 
On Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 11:31:05PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:

> My conclusion is that this is a DFSG-free license, with an
> unconventionally specific requirement of attribution.

Thank you and Simon for your expertise!

-- 
PGP-encrypted mails preferred
PGP Fingerprint: 74CD D9FE 5BCB FE0D 13EE 8EEA 61F3 4426 74DE 6624


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature