On Sat, 2008-01-12 at 14:45 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Package: libofx
Severity: serious
Hi
(a bug to not forget this issue, together with the reject of the newer
version from NEW).
this package contains non-free files, the DTDs, at least those from the
OFX standard, have a non-free license and can't be in main.
---+++
A royalty-free, worldwide, and perpetual license is hereby granted to
any party to use the Open Financial Exchange Specification to make,
use, and sell products and services that conform to this Specification.
+++---
Doesnt fit DFSG 1 and 3 *at least*, you aren't allowed to modify and to
redistribute. There is more, but this is enough already.
I have received the following from the OFX Consortium in clarification
of the license. I believe that with this clarification, it does meet
the DFSG. Can you advise whether it would be accepted on this basis or
whether particular further negotiation is necessary?
With regard to your statement that your software does not necessarily
implement every detail of the OFX specification (in other words, is a
subset of OFX), this is ok as it would still conform to the OFX spec
in every regard implemented.
However, it is not legal to create a different DTD based on OFX and put
that forth as OFX. You would have to represent your derived DTD as your
own and not official OFX. Alternatively, if you use the XML Schema
instead of the DTD you could create new types that inherit from OFX
types and again as long as these are not represented as actual OFX
that's ok.
The bottom line seems to be that it is fine if you use OFX technology as
long as you do not represent your own enhanced version (added to or
changed) as official OFX.
I believe that this guidance satisfies the requirements of the DFSG,
imposing only the requirement that if a modified version does not
implement the OFX spec, it's fine, provided it isn't labelled as OFX.
With this understanding of what constitutes use...that conform[s] to
this Specification I think we are in clear ground.
You had expressed concerns about DFSG #1 and #3. I'm not sure what the
#1 concern was because there was no prohibition on selling or giving
away the stuff even in the most restrictive reading of the OFX license.
It was #3 which clearly had a problem, namely, the apparent restriction
on derivative works. The apparent restriction that it could only be
used in things which implement OFX would have violated #3, #6, and
perhaps #8.
But the guidance from OFX quoted above clarifies this in a way which
should avoid any problem. They are interpreting conformity with the
spec as meaning doesn't claim to implement OFX unless it really does.
For example, fileutils is in conformity with OFX, under the reading they
have given.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
