Re: IUPAC/InChI-Trust Licence DFSG-Compliant ?
On Fri, 2 Mar 2018 22:21:01 +0100 Alex Mestiashvili wrote: [...] > Thank you all for such a detailed answers! You're welcome! > > I found the following in the FAQ[0]: > > 3.2. Is InChI open? > > It is intended that the source code is freely re-usable and a license > has been developed to reflect that. Since the InChI source code has a > normative role (i.e. it acts as the final arbiter of the correctness) it > is not freely modifiable, although it is open to anybody to view and > build an InChI binary. The answer for this FAQ does not seem to be factually correct. The license we are talking about allows modifications (see its section 2) and also allows the licensee to apply the terms of the GNU GPL v2 or later (see section 3), which, in its turn, allows modifications... I am puzzled. > > To my limited understanding this render the software non-free as it > fails for example the desert island test, though it is understandable > why they require the code to be not-modifiable. > Or am I missing the point? A work which is not modifiable fails to meet DFSG#3 and is therefore utterly non-free. However, as I said, the license under consideration does not seem to forbid modifications, as far as I can see... -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgplTScIm_0If.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: IUPAC/InChI-Trust Licence DFSG-Compliant ?
On 02/26/2018 01:54 PM, Alex Mestiashvili wrote: > Hi, > > could you please clarify if the license below can be considered > DFSG-compatible ? > > Section 2 doesn't sound very good, but section 3 says that GPL-2+ may be > applied. > Will it be fine to simply state that it is licensed under GPL-2+ and > also include the original license in d/copyright ? > > Thank you, > Alex > > The PDF version lives here: > http://www.inchi-trust.org/download/105/LICENCE.pdf > Thank you all for such a detailed answers! I found the following in the FAQ[0]: 3.2. Is InChI open? It is intended that the source code is freely re-usable and a license has been developed to reflect that. Since the InChI source code has a normative role (i.e. it acts as the final arbiter of the correctness) it is not freely modifiable, although it is open to anybody to view and build an InChI binary. To my limited understanding this render the software non-free as it fails for example the desert island test, though it is understandable why they require the code to be not-modifiable. Or am I missing the point? I am CC-ing Debichem mailing list, as InChi is a chemistry software. The beginning of the thread is here: https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2018/02/msg00026.html [0] https://www.inchi-trust.org/technical-faq/#3
Re: IUPAC/InChI-Trust Licence DFSG-Compliant ?
On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 09:49:20 +1100 Ben Finney wrote: > Ben Finney writes: > > > To the extent that text is derived from the GNU LGPL, it is a copyright > > violation: [...] > I showed both of those to show that the requirement has not changed > between versions (so it is sufficient to determine that the text is > derived from either version of the GNU LGPL). Hello Ben, I assume you have read my latest [reply](https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2018/02/msg00034.html) in this thread. Do you think that the rules for modifications of the GPL text do not hold for modifications of the LGPL text? Could you please elaborate a bit? -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpNgtworXJ7D.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: IUPAC/InChI-Trust Licence DFSG-Compliant ?
Ben Finney writes: > To the extent that text is derived from the GNU LGPL, it is a copyright > violation: I didn't explain well enough why I was including some of the text. This is from the GNU LGPL v2.1: > Copyright (C) 1991, 1999 Free Software Foundation, Inc. […] > Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies > of this license document, but changing it is not allowed. > > https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.html> This is from the GNU LGPL v3: > Copyright © 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc. […] > Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this > license document, but changing it is not allowed. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html> I showed both of those to show that the requirement has not changed between versions (so it is sufficient to determine that the text is derived from either version of the GNU LGPL). -- \ “It is the integrity of each individual human that is in final | `\examination. On personal integrity hangs humanity's fate.” | _o__) —Richard Buckminster Fuller, _Critical Path_, 1981 | Ben Finney
Re: IUPAC/InChI-Trust Licence DFSG-Compliant ?
Dmitry Alexandrov <321...@gmail.com> writes: > I did not wdiff(1) it, but it definitely sounds like a word-for-word > copy of second GNU Lesser GPL to me. :-) To the extent that text is derived from the GNU LGPL, it is a copyright violation: Copyright (C) 1991, 1999 Free Software Foundation, Inc. […] Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.html> Copyright © 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc. […] Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed. So, as a separate matter, it appears the distributors of IUPAC/InChi-Trust License are in violation of copyright law. This would AFAICT include any redistributor, which would preclude having the work in Debian. -- \ “I wish I had a dollar for every time I spent a dollar, because | `\ then, yahoo!, I'd have all my money back.” —Jack Handey | _o__) | Ben Finney
Re: IUPAC/InChI-Trust Licence DFSG-Compliant ?
Mihai Moldovan writes: > * On 02/26/2018 10:28 PM, Ole Streicher wrote: >> The LGPL-2.1 starts with >> >> | Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies >> | of this license document, but changing it is not allowed. >> ^^ >> >> I am therefore wondering whether the IUPAC/... license text violates >> itself the LGPL license conditions and cannot be distributed in Debian >> at all? > > IANAL: they have not changed LGPL-2.1, but copied it and released it under a > different name. Since the license text itself if copyrighted, its usage (and possible modification) has to follow the license conditions. > As far as I understand, it would only be violating LGPL-2.1, if the text was > changed, but the original name retained (since in such a case, naturally, > you'd > be getting something that isn't LGPL-2.1 under the LGPL-2.1 name). The license explicitly forbids the change, independent of whether the result is distributed under the same or under a different name. Best Ole
Re: IUPAC/InChI-Trust Licence DFSG-Compliant ?
On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 22:51:44 +0100 Mihai Moldovan wrote: > * On 02/26/2018 10:28 PM, Ole Streicher wrote: > > The LGPL-2.1 starts with > > > > | Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies > > | of this license document, but changing it is not allowed. > > ^^ > > > > I am therefore wondering whether the IUPAC/... license text violates > > itself the LGPL license conditions and cannot be distributed in Debian > > at all? > > IANAL: they have not changed LGPL-2.1, but copied it and released it under a > different name. > > As far as I understand, it would only be violating LGPL-2.1, if the text was > changed, but the original name retained (since in such a case, naturally, > you'd > be getting something that isn't LGPL-2.1 under the LGPL-2.1 name). > > By changing the name as well, they made clear that this is not LGPL-2.1, so I > do > not see any violation. There's probably no violation, I think, since the FSF explicitly [permits](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL) the creation of a modified variant of the GNU GPL, under a different name, with changed instructions-for-use, without the preamble, and without any mention of GNU. I suppose the same rules hold for the GNU LGPL... Anyway, please note that the FSF recommends against contributing to license proliferation! -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpQawF4efUQh.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: IUPAC/InChI-Trust Licence DFSG-Compliant ?
* On 02/26/2018 10:28 PM, Ole Streicher wrote: > The LGPL-2.1 starts with > > | Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies > | of this license document, but changing it is not allowed. > ^^ > > I am therefore wondering whether the IUPAC/... license text violates > itself the LGPL license conditions and cannot be distributed in Debian > at all? IANAL: they have not changed LGPL-2.1, but copied it and released it under a different name. As far as I understand, it would only be violating LGPL-2.1, if the text was changed, but the original name retained (since in such a case, naturally, you'd be getting something that isn't LGPL-2.1 under the LGPL-2.1 name). By changing the name as well, they made clear that this is not LGPL-2.1, so I do not see any violation. Mihai signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: IUPAC/InChI-Trust Licence DFSG-Compliant ?
Francesco Poli writes: > This "IUPAC/InChI-Trust InChI Licence No. 1.0" appears to have been > created starting from the GNU LGPL v2.1, by the following steps: The LGPL-2.1 starts with | Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies | of this license document, but changing it is not allowed. ^^ I am therefore wondering whether the IUPAC/... license text violates itself the LGPL license conditions and cannot be distributed in Debian at all? Cheers Ole
Re: IUPAC/InChI-Trust Licence DFSG-Compliant ?
On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 16:53:12 +0100 Alex Mestiashvili wrote: > On 02/26/2018 03:50 PM, Walter Landry wrote: [...] > > It looks a like the LGPL-2. In any event, this license is fine as is. > > If anyone wants to make modifications that are not allowed by the > > existing text, then they can modify it under GPL-2+ terms. There are > > other examples in the archive of this (e.g. CECILL). > > > > Cheers, > > Walter Landry > > > > I see. Now I also found this license (thanks to codesearch.debian.net) > in openbabel package as LGPL-2.1 compatible. Hello. This "IUPAC/InChI-Trust InChI Licence No. 1.0" appears to have been created starting from the GNU LGPL v2.1, by the following steps: 0) remove the preamble 1) change the license name 2) use the British spelling for the word "license" (that is to say, "licence") 3) add the definition of "IUPAC" 4) add one explicit clarification to clause 2c, which states that the requirement does not extend to any "work that uses the Library" 5) drop some reasoning about executable binaries as derivative works in section 5 6) relax some requirements on distribution of "works that use the Library" in section 6 7) add a new section 15 which includes a non-free restriction on how you can refer to the output of a modified library: | 15. If you modify the Library in any way whatsoever, the output from | any such modified Library may not be referred to as 'InChI' or any | similar name. Any attempt to refer to such output as 'InChI' will | automatically terminate your rights under this Licence. 8) rephrase the instructions for use of the license I think this license contributes to the (bad) license proliferation festival that we sadly continue to witness. In my own personal opinion, it includes at least one non-free restriction (in its section 15), but, luckily, is one-way convertible to the GNU GPL version 2 or later. Hence, I think that a work solely licensed under the terms of this "IUPAC/InChI-Trust InChI Licence No. 1.0" complies or may be made to comply with the DFSG. But we have to remember that such a work can be considered as DFSG-free only as long as it is not linked with GPL-incompatible works! I am not sure which is the usual practice in Debian for cases like this: should the conversion-to-GPL be explicitly performed while packaging the work and the original license just mentioned in the debian/copyright file for completeness' sake? or should the work be left as-is (with the original license in the debian/copyright file), thus relying on the possibility to apply the GPL whenever the need arises? What do other debian-legal regulars think? -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpwaIvqG3j0d.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: IUPAC/InChI-Trust Licence DFSG-Compliant ?
On 02/26/2018 06:03 PM, Dmitry Alexandrov wrote: >> could you please clarify if the license below can be considered >> DFSG-compatible ? >> >> Section 2 doesn't sound very good > > That’s extremely interesting. Could you elaborate, please? > > I did not wdiff(1) it, but it definitely sounds like a word-for-word copy of > second GNU Lesser GPL to me. :-) Well, I am afraid it's not really interesting. Obviously I've never actually read the text of LGPL, and misinterpret the section 2, especially subsection c). There are way to many "musts" to my taste :) > >> but section 3 says that GPL-2+ may be applied. > > Sure. The other sections gave me the same impression. > >> Will it be fine to simply state that it is licensed under GPL-2+ > > Why? Why what ? This question is not relevant anymore after I realized that the license in the topic is a hidden LGPL. Best regards, Alex
Re: IUPAC/InChI-Trust Licence DFSG-Compliant ?
Alex Mestiashvili writes: > Hi, > > could you please clarify if the license below can be considered > DFSG-compatible ? > > Section 2 doesn't sound very good, but section 3 says that GPL-2+ may be > applied. > Will it be fine to simply state that it is licensed under GPL-2+ and > also include the original license in d/copyright ? It looks a like the LGPL-2. In any event, this license is fine as is. If anyone wants to make modifications that are not allowed by the existing text, then they can modify it under GPL-2+ terms. There are other examples in the archive of this (e.g. CECILL). Cheers, Walter Landry
Re: IUPAC/InChI-Trust Licence DFSG-Compliant ?
> could you please clarify if the license below can be considered > DFSG-compatible ? > > Section 2 doesn't sound very good That’s extremely interesting. Could you elaborate, please? I did not wdiff(1) it, but it definitely sounds like a word-for-word copy of second GNU Lesser GPL to me. :-) > but section 3 says that GPL-2+ may be applied. Sure. The other sections gave me the same impression. > Will it be fine to simply state that it is licensed under GPL-2+ Why? > and also include the original license in d/copyright?
Re: IUPAC/InChI-Trust Licence DFSG-Compliant ?
On 02/26/2018 03:50 PM, Walter Landry wrote: > Alex Mestiashvili writes: >> Hi, >> >> could you please clarify if the license below can be considered >> DFSG-compatible ? >> >> Section 2 doesn't sound very good, but section 3 says that GPL-2+ may be >> applied. >> Will it be fine to simply state that it is licensed under GPL-2+ and >> also include the original license in d/copyright ? > > It looks a like the LGPL-2. In any event, this license is fine as is. > If anyone wants to make modifications that are not allowed by the > existing text, then they can modify it under GPL-2+ terms. There are > other examples in the archive of this (e.g. CECILL). > > Cheers, > Walter Landry > I see. Now I also found this license (thanks to codesearch.debian.net) in openbabel package as LGPL-2.1 compatible. Thank you! Alex
