On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 10:58:34 -0500 Steve M. Robbins wrote: [...] > On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 04:21:38PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: > > > According to boost debian/copyright file, the > > Boost Graph library does not seem to comply with the DFSG. > > That file is out of date.
Ah, I didn't know that. Please, update it ASAP, so that it reflects the current situation: this way, users will avoid bothering you with bug-reports including already solved issues! ;-) > > Most of the current boost source files are licensed under the > Boost Software License [http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt] > which I believe is OK by DFSG. Yes, it really seems to be a simple, very permissive, non-copyleft license that complies with the DFSG. [...] > The two marked BLANKET, however, are actually available under the > Boost Software License as all listed authors have granted > > permission to replace all existing licenses on their contributions > to Boost with the Boost Software License, Version 1.0. > > [http://www.boost.org/more/blanket-permission.txt] [...] IIUC, these files are effectively relicensed under the Boost Software License, Version 1.0, despite they still include copyright notices that refer to different licenses... If this is the case, they can be considered OK. I suggest you include the statement where the copyright holders agree to the relicensing in /usr/share/doc/package/, if you don't do so already. [...] > Three more of the headers have MIT/BSD-like licenses which sound okay > to me. They are as follows. > > File detail/bitset.hpp is from SGI with the following license: > > /* > * Copyright (c) 1998 > * Silicon Graphics Computer Systems, Inc. > * > * Permission to use, copy, modify, distribute and sell this software > * and its documentation for any purpose is hereby granted without > * fee, provided that the above copyright notice appear in all copies > * and that both that copyright notice and this permission notice > * appear in supporting documentation. Silicon Graphics makes no > * representations about the suitability of this software for any > * purpose. It is provided "as is" without express or implied > * warranty. */ This seems to be perfectly fine. > > > File isomorphism.hpp is under the following license: > > // Copyright (C) 2001 Jeremy Siek, Douglas Gregor, Brian Osman > // > // Permission to copy, use, sell and distribute this software is > // granted provided this copyright notice appears in all copies. > // Permission to modify the code and to distribute modified code is > // granted provided this copyright notice appears in all copies, and a > // notice that the code was modified is included with the copyright > // notice. > // This software is provided "as is" without express or implied > // warranty, and with no claim as to its suitability for any purpose. This looks OK, too. > > > File property_iter_range.hpp is under the following license: > > // (C) Copyright François Faure, iMAGIS-GRAVIR / UJF, 2001. Permission > // to copy, use, modify, sell and distribute this software is granted > // provided this copyright notice appears in all copies. This software > // is provided "as is" without express or implied warranty, and with > // no claim as to its suitability for any purpose. This one seems to be DFSG-free, as well. > > > File simple_point.hpp has no copyright at all. I presume this is > an oversight and invite the Boost Graph authors to comment. This is dangerous, since (as you probably know) no copyright notice and no license actually defaults to "All Rights Reserved" with current laws. Clarification from upstream is indeed needed. > > > > What is worse, it seems there's no permission to distribute > > the Boost Graph Library in compiled form. > > The headers are only distributed as sources, so that should be OK, > even if annoying and possibly non-free (see below). It's non-free if I cannot distribute a compiled form of the library (it is acceptable if I'm required to distribute source too, in order to distribute a compiled form --as in copyleft licenses--, but forbidding compiled code distribution fails DFSG#2). > > There is a small library that is compiled to libbgl-viz. This library > has four source files, three of which are under Boost Software > License. The exception is libs/graph/src/graphviz_lex.ll, which is > under the origian graph license. On the other hand, the listed > author, Lie-Quan Lee has given blanket permission, so we may apply the > Boost Software License to it as well. So these four files seem to be OK. > > > > > | Any disputes arising out of this Agreement or LICENSEE'S use of > > | the software at any time shall be resolved by the courts of the > > | state of Indiana. LICENSEE hereby consents to the jurisdiction of > > | the Indiana courts and waives the right to challenge the > > | jurisdiction thereof in any dispute arising out of this Agreement > > | or Licensee's use of the software. > > > > This is a choice of venue, which is considered non-free by many > > debian-legal regulars (including myself...). > > People who accept this license may be forced to travel to the state > > of Indiana, whenever the copyright holder decides to sue them (even > > for frivolous claims, even if they live on the other side of the > > ocean). This is a significant restriction on the exercise of the > > rights granted by the license. > > This sounds like a serious problem. Indeed. > I'd hate to have to remove part > of Boost from Debian. To the graph authors: is it possible that the > remaining few files can be relicensed under BSL? I hope they decide to relicense, it would be highly desirable, as it would solve the issues and greatly simplify things. Thanks for dealing with the issues I reported. I hope they can be solved soon. -- :-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-) ...................................................................... Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
pgpXmGEulsu6E.pgp
Description: PGP signature
