Re: Bug#964815: it looks like dprof2calltree cannot be distributed with a GPL-2 work
On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 07:48:31PM -0400, Nicholas D Steeves wrote: > Hi Adrian, Hi Nicholas, >... > Did you read the text at that link? yes. > "it *does* cause practical > problems, including incompatibility with the GNU GPL [emphasis mine]" DFSG free code does not have to be GPL compatible. >... > Were you to provide proof from a legal team that the BSD-4-clause was > somehow GPL-compatible, GPL compatibility is only relevant for for code linked with GPLed code. I fail to see how it would be relevant for the code in question.[1] GPL-incompatible licencing of software like OpenSSL is not a DFSG problem, only a practical problem. > it would still not be DFSG-free, because it > fails the "desert island test" for snail mail. Were OmniTI Computer > Consulting would accept email, it would also fail the "dissident test". This is the first time I see someone claiming BSD-4-clause would not be distributable. > Finally, BSD-4-clause is not an approved license in KDE projects > https://community.kde.org/Policies/Licensing_Policy Policies for new source code added in KDE are not relevant in Debian. > Feel free to escalate this issue...I'm humble and am comfortable with > being shown the error of my ways, but I believe this is a genuine > problem. Yes, it would be good if other people from debian-legal would comment. > Regards, > Nicholas cu Adrian [1] https://sources.debian.org/src/kcachegrind/4:19.08.1-1/converters/dprof2calltree/
Re: Bug#964815: it looks like dprof2calltree cannot be distributed with a GPL-2 work
Hi, Adrian Bunk writes: > On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 07:48:31PM -0400, Nicholas D Steeves wrote: > >> it would still not be DFSG-free, because it >> fails the "desert island test" for snail mail. Were OmniTI Computer >> Consulting would accept email, it would also fail the "dissident test". > > This is the first time I see someone claiming BSD-4-clause would not > be distributable. > Well, BSD-4-clause isn't on the list of DFSG-approved licenses... https://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses >> Finally, BSD-4-clause is not an approved license in KDE projects >> https://community.kde.org/Policies/Licensing_Policy > > Policies for new source code added in KDE are not relevant in Debian. > >> Feel free to escalate this issue...I'm humble and am comfortable with >> being shown the error of my ways, but I believe this is a genuine >> problem. > > Yes, it would be good if other people from debian-legal would comment. > Agreed :-) Cheers, Nicholas signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#964815: it looks like dprof2calltree cannot be distributed with a GPL-2 work
Hi Adrian, Adrian Bunk writes: > On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 06:33:32PM -0400, Nicholas D Steeves wrote: >> Adrian Bunk writes: >> > On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 03:38:57PM -0400, Nicholas D Steeves wrote: >> >>... >> >> * Neither name of the company nor the names of its contributors may be >> >> used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without >> >> specific prior written permission. >> >> >> >> I'm not 100% certain that bundling dprof2calltree with kcachegrind >> >> constitutes a "product[s] derived from this software", because I'm also >> >> of the opinion that bundling != derivation, but it seems like a lawyer >> >> might argue the it does. So kcachegrind and any distributions' package >> >> would also need written persmission from OmniTI Computer Consulting. >> >>... >> > >> > You are arguing the 3-Clause BSD License would be non-free? >> >> No, because dprof2calltree is modified 4-Clause BSD. > > dprof2calltree uses a verbatim copy of 4-Clause BSD > (except for filling the company placeholders). > > This clause is one of the 3 clauses that are identical in 3-clause and > 4-clause BSD. > I'm aware of 4-clause to 3-clause BSD similarities and history. >> > On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 03:53:48PM -0400, Nicholas D Steeves wrote: >> >> It fails the "desert island test" because >> >> 1. Any mention of the features or use of this software requires >> user-facing display of the text "This product includes software >> developed by OmniTI Computer Consulting". >> >> 2. OmniTI Computer Consulting's name cannot be used to "without specific >> prior written permission" >> >> The desert island does not have the paper snailmail service required to >> fulfil #2 (4th clause of the license). > > The 4-clause BSD license is around for 30 years, everyone else > (including the FSF[1]) does not interpret it the way you do > that there would be a conflict between these two clauses. > > cu > Adrian > > [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OriginalBSD Did you read the text at that link? "it *does* cause practical problems, including incompatibility with the GNU GPL [emphasis mine]" Also here https://infogalactic.com/info/License_compatibility Many of the most common free software licenses, especially the permissive licenses, such as the original MIT/X license, BSD licenses (in the three-clause and two-clause forms, *though not the original four-clause form*), MPL 2.0, and LGPL, are "GPL-compatible". That is, their code can be combined with a program under the GPL without conflict and the new combination would have the GPL applied to the whole (not the other license) [emphasis mine]. Finally, the "desert island test" is a DFSG test, and not a DFSG test. Were you to provide proof from a legal team that the BSD-4-clause was somehow GPL-compatible, it would still not be DFSG-free, because it fails the "desert island test" for snail mail. Were OmniTI Computer Consulting would accept email, it would also fail the "dissident test". Finally, BSD-4-clause is not an approved license in KDE projects https://community.kde.org/Policies/Licensing_Policy Feel free to escalate this issue...I'm humble and am comfortable with being shown the error of my ways, but I believe this is a genuine problem. Regards, Nicholas signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#964815: it looks like dprof2calltree cannot be distributed with a GPL-2 work
On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 06:33:32PM -0400, Nicholas D Steeves wrote: > Hi Adrian, > > Adrian Bunk writes: > > > On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 03:38:57PM -0400, Nicholas D Steeves wrote: > >>... > >> * Neither name of the company nor the names of its contributors may be > >> used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without > >> specific prior written permission. > >> > >> I'm not 100% certain that bundling dprof2calltree with kcachegrind > >> constitutes a "product[s] derived from this software", because I'm also of > >> the opinion that bundling != derivation, but it seems like a lawyer might > >> argue the it does. So kcachegrind and any distributions' package would > >> also need written persmission from OmniTI Computer Consulting. > >>... > > > > You are arguing the 3-Clause BSD License would be non-free? > > No, because dprof2calltree is modified 4-Clause BSD. dprof2calltree uses a verbatim copy of 4-Clause BSD (except for filling the company placeholders). This clause is one of the 3 clauses that are identical in 3-clause and 4-clause BSD. > > On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 03:53:48PM -0400, Nicholas D Steeves wrote: > >>... > >> At the very least, it appears that the advertising clauses make > >> dprof2calltree not DFSG-free, > > > > It does not: > > https://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ > > > >> because they fail the "desert island test". > >>... > > > > It does not. > > > > If you choose to advertise the use of this software on your desert > > island, you have to include the acknowledgement in your advertisement. > > It fails the "desert island test" because > > 1. Any mention of the features or use of this software requires > user-facing display of the text "This product includes software > developed by OmniTI Computer Consulting". > > 2. OmniTI Computer Consulting's name cannot be used to "without specific > prior written permission" > > The desert island does not have the paper snailmail service required to > fulfil #2 (4th clause of the license). The 4-clause BSD license is around for 30 years, everyone else (including the FSF[1]) does not interpret it the way you do that there would be a conflict between these two clauses. > Regards, > Nicholas cu Adrian [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OriginalBSD
Re: Bug#964815: it looks like dprof2calltree cannot be distributed with a GPL-2 work
Hi Adrian, Adrian Bunk writes: > On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 03:38:57PM -0400, Nicholas D Steeves wrote: >>... >> * Neither name of the company nor the names of its contributors may be used >> to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific >> prior written permission. >> >> I'm not 100% certain that bundling dprof2calltree with kcachegrind >> constitutes a "product[s] derived from this software", because I'm also of >> the opinion that bundling != derivation, but it seems like a lawyer might >> argue the it does. So kcachegrind and any distributions' package would also >> need written persmission from OmniTI Computer Consulting. >>... > > You are arguing the 3-Clause BSD License would be non-free? > No, because dprof2calltree is modified 4-Clause BSD. > On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 03:53:48PM -0400, Nicholas D Steeves wrote: >>... >> At the very least, it appears that the advertising clauses make >> dprof2calltree not DFSG-free, > > It does not: > https://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ > >> because they fail the "desert island test". >>... > > It does not. > > If you choose to advertise the use of this software on your desert > island, you have to include the acknowledgement in your advertisement. > It fails the "desert island test" because 1. Any mention of the features or use of this software requires user-facing display of the text "This product includes software developed by OmniTI Computer Consulting". 2. OmniTI Computer Consulting's name cannot be used to "without specific prior written permission" The desert island does not have the paper snailmail service required to fulfil #2 (4th clause of the license). Regards, Nicholas signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#964815: it looks like dprof2calltree cannot be distributed with a GPL-2 work
On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 03:38:57PM -0400, Nicholas D Steeves wrote: >... > * Neither name of the company nor the names of its contributors may be used > to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific > prior written permission. > > I'm not 100% certain that bundling dprof2calltree with kcachegrind > constitutes a "product[s] derived from this software", because I'm also of > the opinion that bundling != derivation, but it seems like a lawyer might > argue the it does. So kcachegrind and any distributions' package would also > need written persmission from OmniTI Computer Consulting. >... You are arguing the 3-Clause BSD License would be non-free? On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 03:53:48PM -0400, Nicholas D Steeves wrote: >... > At the very least, it appears that the advertising clauses make > dprof2calltree not DFSG-free, It does not: https://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ > because they fail the "desert island test". >... It does not. If you choose to advertise the use of this software on your desert island, you have to include the acknowledgement in your advertisement. cu Adrian
