Re: [panc...@nopcode.org: License]
Hi, inlined reply On 27/10/2011, at 18:44, Ted Unangst wrote: > Uh, actually there are two licenses in that file. The BSD license only > has 3 clauses. The first license does have 4 clauses, but not all > licenses with 4 clauses are BSD licenses. Did the debian dudes read the > license and decide it's incompatible, or is this all a misunderstanding > of what the license is? You are right. I have fwd the mail to the Debian guy and he recognized he was wrong. Is this supposed to be dual licensed then? The first 4 clause license is definitely not bsd. And it just forces me to put credits in documentation.. I have to assume that this is going to be in the manpages or AUTHORS file > You'd have to talk to Spencer about changing it, but I really doubt > that's necessary because that regex code was very widely copied. I can > practically guarantee there are other programs in Debian using it too. > I think its ok. So no need to change it. > [Whatever it is you're building, why not just use the system regex code? > That seems more maintainable in the long run.] Windows doesnt have regex in his sucky posix implementation, so i'm forced to distribute my own if i want it to run there. I can definitely ifdefi'd just for this platform, but for testing its better to use the same source in all platforms. Because I try to use windows the less as possible. This is called 'embedded libraries' and Debian policies enforce to avoid them.. For example: The libmagic in r2 actually can be compiled to use the system one or the embedded. On debian it uses the system one. Another reason is for portability. Gnu libc regex supports some extensions to the standard that didnt work on openbsd libc which may lead to confussions or unexpected issues on end users using my software on different platforms. Thanks again, and sorry for the noise PD: sorry for filling that nontech thread here. I was just reply-all-ing to edd barret's mails O:)
Re: [panc...@nopcode.org: License]
Sorry for the lag and the silence. I've been pretty busy and was unable to reply in this thread. There was a confussion with the bug report that I want to clarify. In radare2 I took libc/regex and usr.bin/file from the OpenBSD CVS. I was looking for some smart implementations of regex and magic to be used in my project and make it more portable. After a long evaluation I found that the OpenBSD ones was the shorter and nicer to maintain. During the merge process I found some C missuses which caused crashes and problems in file.. I already report them to Edd Barret. So I think they should be already fixed in mainstream. The problem I'm facing now is in libr/util/regex which is the imported version of OpenBSD's lib/libc/regex. The issue was reported by the Debian maintainer of r2 and it's a license issue. http://radare.org/cgi-bin/hg/radare2/file/41de633fa424/libr/util/regex If you look at the COPYRIGHT file you'll see that this BSD license includes the 4th clause which is GPL incompatible and therefore problematic for Debian to be packaged. The thing is that there's no .c file in the same directory that contains such clause, all the code is under 2 or 3 bsd clauses which are ok for Debian. I want to clarify if this 4th clause is inherited to the C code or it's just a license bug or what. r2-0.8.8 release is locked by this issue, so it would be great if we can fix it asap. Thanks --pancake
Re: [panc...@nopcode.org: License]
Hi Pancake, pancake wrote on Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 06:03:13PM +0200: > Sorry for the lag and the silence. I've been pretty busy and was > unable to reply in this thread. No problem with the delay, your time is your own to spend. However, i'm not sure this discussion is apropriate on tech@. You are not sending patches. Next time, consider using misc@. > There was a confussion with the bug report that I want to clarify. > > In radare2 I took libc/regex and usr.bin/file from the OpenBSD CVS. > I was looking for some smart implementations of regex and magic to > be used in my project and make it more portable. After a long > evaluation I found that the OpenBSD ones was the shorter and nicer > to maintain. Well, that's a completely different question, not at all related to file(1). > During the merge process I found some C missuses which caused > crashes and problems in file.. I already report them to Edd Barret. > So I think they should be already fixed in mainstream. > > The problem I'm facing now is in libr/util/regex which is the > imported version of OpenBSD's lib/libc/regex. > > The issue was reported by the Debian maintainer of r2 and it's a > license issue. > >http://radare.org/cgi-bin/hg/radare2/file/41de633fa424/libr/util/regex > > If you look at the COPYRIGHT file you'll see that this BSD license > includes the 4th clause which is GPL incompatible and therefore > problematic for Debian to be packaged. I don't see the 4th Berkeley clause in there, but i do see that it was removed 8 years ago: http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/ \ src/lib/libc/regex/COPYRIGHT.diff?r1=1.2;r2=1.3 Once again, it seems unclear what you are talking about. Maybe you are talking about something else, not the 4th Berkeley clause? If so, what exactly? Yours, Ingo > The thing is that there's no .c file in the same directory that > contains such clause, all the code is under 2 or 3 bsd clauses which > are ok for Debian. > > I want to clarify if this 4th clause is inherited to the C code or > it's just a license bug or what. > > r2-0.8.8 release is locked by this issue, so it would be great if we > can fix it asap.
Re: [panc...@nopcode.org: License]
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011, pancake wrote: > The problem I'm facing now is in libr/util/regex which is the imported > version of OpenBSD's lib/libc/regex. > > The issue was reported by the Debian maintainer of r2 and it's a license > issue. > > http://radare.org/cgi-bin/hg/radare2/file/41de633fa424/libr/util/regex > > If you look at the COPYRIGHT file you'll see that this BSD license > includes the 4th clause which is GPL incompatible and therefore > problematic for Debian to be packaged. Uh, actually there are two licenses in that file. The BSD license only has 3 clauses. The first license does have 4 clauses, but not all licenses with 4 clauses are BSD licenses. Did the debian dudes read the license and decide it's incompatible, or is this all a misunderstanding of what the license is? You'd have to talk to Spencer about changing it, but I really doubt that's necessary because that regex code was very widely copied. I can practically guarantee there are other programs in Debian using it too. [Whatever it is you're building, why not just use the system regex code? That seems more maintainable in the long run.]
Re: [panc...@nopcode.org: License]
Hi, Ted Unangst wrote on Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 08:29:40PM -0400: > On Fri, Oct 14, 2011, Christiano F. Haesbaert wrote: >> On 14 October 2011 17:19, Ted Unangst wrote: >>> On Fri, Oct 14, 2011, Edd Barrett wrote: A port I am maintaining uses our file(1) implementation. A debian dev who was packaging this thinks he has spotted a license bug. Said I would forward his mail onto OpenBSD, so here it is. >>> What COPYRIGHT file? There's no such file in my src/usr.bin/file. And >>> the *.c files are all 2 clause, not 3. >> Actually magdir/os9 has the 4 clause license. > Already solved. > > http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/ \ > src/external/bsd/file/dist/magic/magdir/os9.diff?r1=1.1&r2=1.2 Duh, sorry for missing that. Anyway, i just fixed it in our tree. Yours, Ingo
Re: [panc...@nopcode.org: License]
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011, Christiano F. Haesbaert wrote: > On 14 October 2011 17:19, Ted Unangst wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 14, 2011, Edd Barrett wrote: >>> Hi guys, >>> >>> A port I am maintaining uses our file(1) implementation. A debian >>> dev who was packaging this thinks he has spotted a license bug. >>> >>> Said I would forward his mail onto OpenBSD, so here it is. >>> >>> Discuss. >> >> What COPYRIGHT file? There's no such file in my src/usr.bin/file. And >> the *.c files are all 2 clause, not 3. >> > > Actually magdir/os9 has the 4 clause license. Already solved. http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/src/external/bsd/file/dist/magic/magdir/os9.diff?r1=1.1&r2=1.2
Re: [panc...@nopcode.org: License]
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 04:19:58PM -0400, Ted Unangst wrote: > > A port I am maintaining uses our file(1) implementation. A debian > > dev who was packaging this thinks he has spotted a license bug. > > > > Said I would forward his mail onto OpenBSD, so here it is. > > > > Discuss. > > What COPYRIGHT file? There's no such file in my src/usr.bin/file. And > the *.c files are all 2 clause, not 3. Yah, I am not sure what he is on about either now. I don't see a COPYRIGHT file. -- Best Regards Edd Barrett http://www.theunixzoo.co.uk
Re: [panc...@nopcode.org: License]
Hi, Edd Barrett wrote on Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 02:13:52PM +0100: > From: pancake >> Debian packager has reported a bug in magic license. >> >> COPYRIGHT file contains the 4th clause bsd There is no COPYRIGHT file in the OpenBSD file(1) source directory. So, i'm not 100% sure what you are talking about. However, one of the source files used for composing the magic file, namely, src/usr.bin/file/magdir/os9 is indeed licenced under the four-clause BSD license. According to the Copyright statement in that file, the author is "Copyright (c) 1996 Ignatios Souvatzis [...] This product includes software developed by Ignatios Souvatzis for the NetBSD project." Maybe that is what you are talking about? >> which is gpl incompatible. That's no problem at all, for software in the OpenBSD base system, it is not required to be GPL compatible. > The thing is that *.c files include the 3clause bsd license > which is ok. > > Can i remove the 4th clause from the copyright file? NO, YOU CANNOT. You can never remove conditions from license files. Only the author can release her/his intellectual property under a different license, unless the existing license explicitely allows sublicensing, which the BSD license does not allow. So, Pancake, you can try to talk to Ignatios Souvatzis to rescind the fourth clause in his license. Many authors are willing to do that nowdays, after UCB did the same more than a decade ago. If the author is unwilling to release the file under a license that pleases you, or doesn't answer, or is unreachable, just don't use the file. Deleting one of more than 200 magic files won't render file(1) useless. > This should be reported to openbsd too as long as its inconsistent > and can be problematic. For OpenBSD, this is not really a problem. Until about 2003, large parts of the OpenBSD tree were distributed under the 4-clause BSD license anyway, and there are still parts that are licensed that way. The third and fourth clauses are a bit annoying, so don't use them for licensing your own files, but having files licensed that way it is no real problem in a BSD distribution. > A port I am maintaining uses our file(1) implementation. A debian > dev who was packaging this thinks he has spotted a license bug. I fail to see any bug here. Do you see a bug, Edd? If so, where exactly? Yours, Ingo
Re: [panc...@nopcode.org: License]
On 14 October 2011 17:19, Ted Unangst wrote: > On Fri, Oct 14, 2011, Edd Barrett wrote: >> Hi guys, >> >> A port I am maintaining uses our file(1) implementation. A debian >> dev who was packaging this thinks he has spotted a license bug. >> >> Said I would forward his mail onto OpenBSD, so here it is. >> >> Discuss. > > What COPYRIGHT file? There's no such file in my src/usr.bin/file. And > the *.c files are all 2 clause, not 3. > Actually magdir/os9 has the 4 clause license.
Re: [panc...@nopcode.org: License]
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011, Edd Barrett wrote: > Hi guys, > > A port I am maintaining uses our file(1) implementation. A debian > dev who was packaging this thinks he has spotted a license bug. > > Said I would forward his mail onto OpenBSD, so here it is. > > Discuss. What COPYRIGHT file? There's no such file in my src/usr.bin/file. And the *.c files are all 2 clause, not 3. > > - Forwarded message from pancake - > > Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 01:19:26 +0200 > From: pancake > To: Edd Barrett > Subject: License > X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (8C148) > > Debian packager has reported a bug in magic license. > > COPYRIGHT file contains the 4th clause bsd which is gpl incompatible. The > thing is that *.c files include the 3clause bsd license which is ok. > > Can i remove the 4th clause from the copyright file? This should be > reported to openbsd too as long as its inconsistent and can be problematic. > > - End forwarded message - > > -- > Best Regards > Edd Barrett > > http://www.theunixzoo.co.uk
[panc...@nopcode.org: License]
Hi guys, A port I am maintaining uses our file(1) implementation. A debian dev who was packaging this thinks he has spotted a license bug. Said I would forward his mail onto OpenBSD, so here it is. Discuss. - Forwarded message from pancake - Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 01:19:26 +0200 From: pancake To: Edd Barrett Subject: License X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (8C148) Debian packager has reported a bug in magic license. COPYRIGHT file contains the 4th clause bsd which is gpl incompatible. The thing is that *.c files include the 3clause bsd license which is ok. Can i remove the 4th clause from the copyright file? This should be reported to openbsd too as long as its inconsistent and can be problematic. - End forwarded message - -- Best Regards Edd Barrett http://www.theunixzoo.co.uk
