Re: ad hoc license: is it DFSG-conformant ?
So who bears the exposure to litigation or enforcement actions? -tony On 2016-03-12 1:17 AM, Riley Baird wrote: I know you were asking Ben, but really, I'd say that it isn't worth the effort. Try submitting the package to the archive, and if the FTP masters reject it, you can deal with the problem then.
Re: ad hoc license: is it DFSG-conformant ?
On Sat, 12 Mar 2016, Riley Baird wrote: Please let me know if would be good idea to contact the upstream team to clarify their Copyright. I know you were asking Ben, but really, I'd say that it isn't worth the effort. Try submitting the package to the archive, and if the FTP masters reject it, you can deal with the problem then. hmm, talking to upstream is always a good idea. The time of the ftpteam is always limited. So if I had to review the package, I would be glad if all issues had been resolved before. Thorsten
Re: ad hoc license: is it DFSG-conformant ?
What enforcement actions can you possibly see arising from this? On Sat, 12 Mar 2016 07:16:43 -0500 Tony Rutkowski wrote: > So who bears the exposure to litigation or > enforcement actions? > -tony > > On 2016-03-12 1:17 AM, Riley Baird wrote: > > I know you were asking Ben, but really, I'd say that it isn't worth the > > effort. Try submitting the package to the archive, and if the FTP > > masters reject it, you can deal with the problem then. > pgpv_LjkMZLDl.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: ad hoc license: is it DFSG-conformant ?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Hello Forum: thanks a lot for your constructive comments. On 12/03/16 04:37, Charles Plessy wrote: > Le Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 01:39:12PM +1100, Ben Finney a écrit : >> Jerome BENOIT writes: >> >>> On 11/03/16 21:15, Riley Baird wrote: That licence is fine. >>> So now step forward in peace. >> >> Before achieving peace, please see the rest of the thread in >> ‘debian-legal’; I disagree with Riley's assessment. > > Hi Ben, > > this ad-hoc license is obviously not of the same quality as some general > license written with lawyer advice, but I think that the missing explicit > permission is a honest imperfection, especially that the software has already > been redistributed for years, and that its relicensing was explicitely done to > further facilitate the redistribution and incorporation in larger works. The > license that we are discussing allows redistribution, and one person receiving > the sources will receive them with a copy of the license, so the author > probably considers it obvious that the recipient can use the software under > that license, and that this does not have to be explicitely written. > > In my opinion, this software is DFSG-free, even if its license text could be > improved or replaced by a more general, frequently used and well-understood > license > I have asked for clarification to the upstream team. > Have a nice week-end, > Best regards, Jerome -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJW5H0oAAoJEIC/w4IMSybjO4oIAJlbKDpxtAJ+JhUKESa72mK1 JDeF5zgS4IRncoqVQ6u3xHaCAbgQnqecQBTPAeQ+V3hKC24x5l0Jt5x74SX18oGy kSyLybGRhYN4sDNojhlgGGZMcOcKzMNWqEbFeafNDJ7kDLFhwplZ4M3dHSjPqi+Q u9fT2/XdgDj6aKdB6BYsTe4tsbhmQk4dT116WOh/I3/zKFUet+cBzHN678/wXAim 1zZDZPNFGVPzsBTT4xxyh1NK9nsz1BVTKrW4voHbB4Shvrc5bAUmLuafqGSO9yur b01d6vYVvjgMo3IJrWFZxzF7h+O6f5TTTH47KsQbUeQYi9tDhh6WFJi1xurIccM= =clNc -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: ad hoc license: is it DFSG-conformant ?
On Sat, 12 Mar 2016 14:14:44 +0100 (CET) Thorsten Alteholz wrote: > > > On Sat, 12 Mar 2016, Riley Baird wrote: > > >> Please let me know if would be good idea to contact the upstream team to > >> clarify their Copyright. > > > > I know you were asking Ben, but really, I'd say that it isn't worth the > > effort. Try submitting the package to the archive, and if the FTP > > masters reject it, you can deal with the problem then. > > hmm, talking to upstream is always a good idea. True, but upstream just changed their license so that it would be free software. Unless there is a serious defect in the license, then I don't think that we should bother them again. > The time of the ftpteam is always limited. So if I had to review the > package, I would be glad if all issues had been resolved before. Fair point. We'll try with the best of our collective ability to do so. pgpCXIgYK4cIp.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: ad hoc license: is it DFSG-conformant ? [IMPROVED VERSION]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Hello Forum. Finally I get a feed back from the upstream. Please find below the new version: what do you think ? Thanks, Jerome - This is the [[license]] for the software package Nauty and Traces, [[package]] versions 2.6 and later. Four categories of software are included in the package: A. All files not listed as B-D below, copyright Brendan McKay (1984-) B. Files traces.h, traces.c and dretodot.c, copyright Adolfo Piperno (2008-) C. File watercluster2.c, copyright Gunnar Brinkmann (2009-) D. Files planarity.h and planarity.c, copyright Magma project, University of Sydney Permission is hereby given for the use, distribution and modification of this software [[in source or compiled form]], subject to the following. * You must include this copyright notice with all distributed copies of this software, including modified copies. * You must clearly mark modified versions of this software as differing from the original. Regarding all the files in the package: This software is only provided "as is". No guarantee is made as to the suitability of this software for any purpose. No responsibility will be taken by the authors or their employers for any misfortune which befalls [[anyone]] because of its use. Your use of this software implies your agreement with this notice. [[Modified versions of the software and works derived from it may be distributed under the same terms and conditions.]] Brendan McKay: Australian National University; brendan.mc...@anu.edu.au Adolfo Piperno: University of Rome "Sapienza"; pipe...@di.uniroma1.it Gunnar Brinkmann: University of Ghent; gunnar.brinkm...@ugent.be Magma Administration: University of Sydney; ad...@maths.usyd.edu.au - -- Comments from the upstream team: ``Here is a slight modification for [your] comments. [The upstream author] added a sentence to cover DFSL#3 and also made a small number of other changes. All new text is within [[...]]; obviously those brackets will be gone when the license is actually used.'' On 12/03/16 14:14, Thorsten Alteholz wrote: > > > On Sat, 12 Mar 2016, Riley Baird wrote: > >>> Please let me know if would be good idea to contact the upstream team to >>> clarify their Copyright. >> >> I know you were asking Ben, but really, I'd say that it isn't worth the >> effort. Try submitting the package to the archive, and if the FTP >> masters reject it, you can deal with the problem then. > > hmm, talking to upstream is always a good idea. > > The time of the ftpteam is always limited. So if I had to review the package, > I would be glad if all issues had been resolved before. > > Thorsten > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJW5LfYAAoJEIC/w4IMSybj/HYIALAxuufQzD+cADSwTnpKjzgw GQk2aTA1zvz1g97ugKqAdYjLqt2RAcFsQ/5NSl4UDnfsIVDY19g6ap4MQO8qmRpA /bh2InG5byBLmxD6xATpLwLLzIPagCPOm87aguI5InieBmXBihfVajElDFXplxC0 35HQO7Qy0ELz/3kTVRf70F3JL9i3KZ0e8+lg+0GwWC9HRQlx4NBxYGep+SQW7PzI 7SJHHz9vB3iyADTUXBoQzYnNc6MM2TkpSDoFqLzn8ga5hw/C1IjNe2BlLDs0nXI1 IphClVNXMr0VPO2x2iRSVW59TQnJ9ULlon0Koc5TjdG7tmrP9qsAplwwQP8+X6E= =sZHS -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: ad hoc license: is it DFSG-conformant ? [IMPROVED VERSION]
Jerome BENOIT writes: > Finally I get a feed back from the upstream. Thank you, Jerome, for engaging the copyright holders effectively to improve the freedom of software recipients. > Please find below the new version: what do you think ? > […] > [[Modified versions of the software and works derived from it > may be distributed under the same terms and conditions.]] This grants explicit freedom to redistribute under the same license conditions, satisfying DFSG §3. In combination with the other freedoms granted, that makes the work free software by my interpretation. The copyright holder could improve this further by avoiding custom license texts entirely, and instead granting license under a widely-known free software license text like the Apache License 2.0. That would have the benefit of having a much greater assurance than the small group of people's opinions in this forum. -- \ “If you can do no good, at least do no harm.” —_Slapstick_, | `\ Kurt Vonnegut | _o__) | Ben Finney
