RE: Distribution of non-GPL models with GPL Software (Was: [Qucs-devel] Closed bugs)
David Bremner wrote: [snip] > Speaking only for my self, I don't see a problem with shipping DFSG-free [0] > licensed data with GPL code. As long as the code runs fine without the > models in > question, I guess it is pretty clearly not linked. > > [quote of proposed license] > > >> Any changes beyond the above (which may affect performance or > >> function of the model) are permitted, but must be distributed as a > >> "patch file" alongside the original, unmodified spice model. > > At first I thought this completely in the spirit of DFSG 4, and thus fine > from a > Debian policy point of view. But on second thought I'm not so sure. I'm not > sure > exactly how to apply "The license must explicitly permit distribution of > software > built from modified source code." to this case. That's the confusing part -- what is defined as "software" and "source code". In this case - Qucs is the software. Any contributions we did for the Qucs source code, would be released under the Qucs license (GPL). Models, which care not compiled into Qucs, are not "source code" of Qucs, and are more like "data files" along side Qucs, which Qucs operates on. Qucs runs fine without them, and the models are only included as a convenience to the user. > I guess it would be OK if the > license permitted modified files as long as the original and a patch were also > included, although that makes the patch a bit redundant. It's hard for us to do that - since our models go through a pretty rigorous QA process. People modifying the model to make one aspect better, and another worse may be OK for that specific user, but not everyone. This is why we thought a original + patch would work better. > Maybe somebody else has more experience with e.g. data sets and can suggest > an existing license which might be suitable. This is almost always preferable > to > creating a new license. Yeah, I looked around for some examples - the only thing I found was gnuplot. http://gnuplot.cvs.sourceforge.net/gnuplot/gnuplot/Copyright?view=markup The reason it's not 100% appropriate, is it describes "software". The model is not software (IHMO). The model is used to direct a computer simulation (in this case Qucs, "the software"). The model can't do anything by itself, or be compiled into anything useful. > [0] http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-science-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/feae1c531ee4684ebdd22603ec8be599062...@nwd2mbx7.ad.analog.com
RE: Distribution of non-GPL models with GPL Software (Was: [Qucs-devel] Closed bugs)
"Getz, Robin" writes: > Adding the debian maintainer, and debian-science list to make sure there > aren't distribution objections before I start verifying everything. > > Some background: > I would like to include some vendor specific SPICE models with Qucs, which > are not under the GPL, but a license which (I hope) to be compliant to the > DFSG. > Speaking only for my self, I don't see a problem with shipping DFSG-free [0] licensed data with GPL code. As long as the code runs fine without the models in question, I guess it is pretty clearly not linked. [quote of proposed license] >> Any changes beyond the above (which may affect performance or >> function of the model) are permitted, but must be distributed as a >> "patch file" alongside the original, unmodified spice model. At first I thought this completely in the spirit of DFSG 4, and thus fine from a Debian policy point of view. But on second thought I'm not so sure. I'm not sure exactly how to apply "The license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified source code." to this case. I guess it would be OK if the license permitted modified files as long as the original and a patch were also included, although that makes the patch a bit redundant. Maybe somebody else has more experience with e.g. data sets and can suggest an existing license which might be suitable. This is almost always preferable to creating a new license. d [0] http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-science-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/871u825uqt@maritornes.cs.unb.ca
RE: Distribution of non-GPL models with GPL Software (Was: [Qucs-devel] Closed bugs)
Adding the debian maintainer, and debian-science list to make sure there aren't distribution objections before I start verifying everything. Some background: I would like to include some vendor specific SPICE models with Qucs, which are not under the GPL, but a license which (I hope) to be compliant to the DFSG. In a recent email, Richard stated: > [snip] but in my view all models which are not compiled and linked into Qucs > may be > considered merely as 'data' which is processed by Qucs. > [snip] > This is especially true with spice models, as in this case Qucs is merely > interpreting a > 'standard interface', the spice model is portable between multiple > simulators, > not tied to just Qucs. The license suggestion is below. Thanks -Robin > -Original Message- > From: Getz, Robin [mailto:robin.g...@analog.com] > Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2013 8:04 AM > To: Richard Crozier; qucs-de...@lists.sourceforge.net > Subject: Re: [Qucs-devel] Closed bugs > > Richard: > > The goal is that no changes may be made that affect the performance or > function of the model, which end users think are coming from Analog Devices. > > > What I suggested to our SPICE team was something like: > > > You may include copies of Analog Devices' SPICE models with any software you > sell or distribute. However, you may not make changes to the redistributed > copies of Analog Devices SPICE models other than to: > 1.Include comments. > 2.Change nomenclature so that it will run on Your company's > software/open source software package which you help maintain. > > Any files which have been modified for any reason above, should be clearly > marked (in the header, read me, appropriate software documentation, or file > name change) that this is no longer an Analog Devices Inc verified/original > SPICE > model. > > Any changes beyond the above (which may affect performance or function of > the model) are permitted, but must be distributed as a "patch file" alongside > the > original, unmodified spice model. > > > > Would you suggest anything else? > > > From: Richard Crozier [mailto:r.croz...@ed.ac.uk] > > However, my immediate reaction is that I am not sure about distributing these > models with Qucs, mainly because Users might assume everything that comes > with Qucs is GPL or similar and inadvertently incriminate themselves. Having > looked at the licence you link to, it's not all that permissive in my view, > for > instance: > > "You may include copies of Analog Devices' SPICE models with any software you > sell or distribute. However, you may not make changes to the redistributed > copies of Analog Devices SPICE models other than to: > > 1. Include comments. > 2. Change nomenclature so that it will run on Your company's software. No > changes may be made that affect the performance or function of the model." > > But in principle I see the benefit of distributing these models, and in > practice > think most users would not want to modify them. How about giving us a sense of > what the tweaked licence for the subset of models you are interested in would > be like though > -- > This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows: > > Build for Windows Store. > > http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev > ___ > Qucs-devel mailing list > qucs-de...@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/qucs-devel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-science-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/feae1c531ee4684ebdd22603ec8be59905f...@nwd2mbx7.ad.analog.com
