On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 05:54:35PM +0300, Harri J?rvi wrote: > Hello, > > Linuxsampler is packaged in debian unstable. > > It would seem to me that Linuxsampler currently is not compatible with > DFSG. Agree.
> Also it seems to me that Linuxsampler's authors wouldn't be allowed to > make the kind of a restriction to the GPL as they do. The copyright holder can do whatever they want. However, its sometimes impossible to use the software in a way consistent with all of their license terms .. see, for example, recent threads on the PHP license, which is used by some software written in php, but not php itself. The php license implies that redistribution of the software includes PHP; but, it does not (well, it could, but it should not have to). So, Debian is taking the stance of "we will not distribute this software, because the license is unclear or inconsistent, or just badly implemented" (depending on your interpretation). > The problem is that the README in linuxsampler says the following thing: > > "This software is distributed under the GNU General Public License (see > COPYING file), and may not be used in commercial applications without > asking the authors for permission." The part after the comma makes it DFSG nonfree, because it is inconsistent with [0]: | 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor | | The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in | a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the | program from being used in a business > The debian copyright-file only says: > > "This software is distributed under the GNU General Public License (see > COPYING file), and may not be used in commercial applications without > asking the authors for permission." Thats a Debian packaging bug. > In summary, I think there is a conflict between the copyright statement > in the debian package and the copyright statement in the upstream > linuxsampler readme (copyright statement). Debian package maintainer > shouldn't have removed the part of the copyright/license statement that > made the additional restrictions. Agree (but, it was probably a mistake; I think the GPL bit in ./debian/copyright was probably pasted there by dh_make). > Also there seems to be a conflict between the GPL and the Linuxsampler's > way to add restrictions. I don't think you are allowed to use GPL and > make additional restrictions to it. The copyright holder is allowed to do whatever they want. (However, they are not allowed to modify the GPL; it disallows that). This license, as ammeded, is inconsistent, though. > I don't think the upstream version would be DFSG if the restrictions > would apply. Agree. I'm filing a grave bug now, hopefully with Cc: -legal the right way, this time. Either upstream needs to be contacted to rectify the situation, or the package needs to be removed. At present, the software can be unknowingly used by a Debian user in violation of the license terms, and that's a problem. Justin References [0] http://www.us.debian.org/social_contract -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]