Hi Adrian, Adrian Bunk <b...@debian.org> 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
