Re: BSDish licenses without explicit modification permission

2020-08-16 Thread Richard Fontana 
On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 12:25 AM Paul Wise  wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 1:55 AM Paul Wise wrote:
>
> > Does anyone have any thoughts about this?
>
> I talked to one of RedHat's lawyers and they mentioned that they have
> dealt with this problem too and concluded that these licenses were
> intended to cover modification.

This was probably me. :-) Anyway, belatedly belatedly confirming this.

Richard


The current wording of the initial
> part of the BSD license reflects an attempt to correct an earlier
> mistake (i.e. someone pointed out the error and Berkeley added "with
> or without modification"). Also note that the anti-endorsement clause
> implies a right to modify.
>
> --
> bye,
> pabs
>
> https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
>

Re: BSDish licenses without explicit modification permission

2020-06-18 Thread Paul Wise 
On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 1:55 AM Paul Wise wrote:

> conserver package is in non-free because of this issue but it appears a
> lot of people did not notice the lack of modification permission.
...
> https://www.conserver.com/pipermail/users/2019-July/msg1.html

Due to the interpretation provided by RedHat's lawyer and some
clarifications provided by Conserver upstream, I have filed a request
for Conserver to move from non-free to Debian main.

https://bugs.debian.org/963103

-- 
bye,
pabs

https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise

Re: BSDish licenses without explicit modification permission

2020-05-24 Thread Paul Wise 
On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 1:55 AM Paul Wise wrote:

> Does anyone have any thoughts about this?

I talked to one of RedHat's lawyers and they mentioned that they have
dealt with this problem too and concluded that these licenses were
intended to cover modification. The current wording of the initial
part of the BSD license reflects an attempt to correct an earlier
mistake (i.e. someone pointed out the error and Berkeley added "with
or without modification"). Also note that the anti-endorsement clause
implies a right to modify.

-- 
bye,
pabs

https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise

BSDish licenses without explicit modification permission

2019-07-05 Thread Paul Wise 
Hi all,

There are several packages (including GCC and Linux) in Debian that
contain files released under several different BSDish licenses that are
missing the explicit modification permission. Many of these files
contain comments indicating that they likely have been modified. I
think that these files are non-free and that their license is being
violated by both Debian and the corresponding upstream projects. The
conserver package is in non-free because of this issue but it appears a
lot of people did not notice the lack of modification permission.

Does anyone have any thoughts about this?

 * Is there some aspect of the situation that I have missed?
 * Should we ignore it as we seem to have done since 1989?
 * Should we add a lintian warning about this?
 * Should we file lots of RC bugs about this?
 * Should I be discussing this elsewhere?

https://codesearch.debian.net/search?perpkg=1=Redistribution+and+use+in+source+and+binary+forms+%28are%7Cis%29+permitted
https://www.conserver.com/pipermail/users/2019-July/msg1.html

Examples of the licenses:

---

   Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted
   provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
   duplicated in all such forms and that any documentation,
   advertising materials, and other materials related to such
   distribution and use acknowledge that the software was developed
   by the University of California, Berkeley.  The name of the
   University may not be used to endorse or promote products derived
   from this software without specific prior written permission.
   THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED ``AS IS'' AND WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS OR
   IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

---

   Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted
   provided that this notice is preserved and that due credit is given
   to the University of California at Berkeley. The name of the University
   may not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this
   software without specific written prior permission. This software
   is provided ``as is'' without express or implied warranty.

-- 
bye,
pabs

https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part