Re: JPL Planetary Ephemeris DE405

[Dmitry Alexandrov]

>> Where can I find the text of the NOSA v2.0 ? 
>
> I was going to suggest
> https://web.archive.org/web/20150923151504/https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2013-June/000610.html
>
> but the attachment containing the text was scrubbed.

Here it is:

NASA OPEN SOURCE AGREEMENT VERSION 2.0

This open source agreement (“Agreement”) defines the rights of use, 
reproduction, modification and redistribution of certain software released by 
the United States Government (“Government”) as represented by the Government 
Agency listed below (“Government Agency”).  The United States Government, as 
represented by Government Agency, is an intended third-party beneficiary of all 
subsequent redistributions of the Subject Software.  Anyone who uses, 
reproduces, modifies or redistributes the Subject Software, as defined herein, 
or any part thereof, is, by that action, accepting in full the responsibilities 
and obligations contained in this Agreement. 

Government Agency: __ 
Government Agency Original Software Designation: _
Government Agency Original Software Title & Ver. No. : _
Government Agency Point of Contact: 
User Registration Requested.  Please Visit 
http://

1. DEFINITIONS
A. “Contributor” means Government Agency and any other person or entity that 
creates or contributes to the creation of Subject Software.
B. “Contribution” means any Work, including Your own Works and Works of other 
Contributors, that are Derivative Works of the Subject Software and that are 
intentionally submitted by You or other Contributors to Government Agency for 
inclusion in, or documentation of, the Subject Software.
C. “Covered Patents” means any patent claims licensable by a Contributor that 
are necessarily infringed by the manufacture, import, use, offer for sale, or 
sale of a Contributor’s Derivative Works or Contributions alone or when 
combined with the Subject Software.
D. “Derivative Work” means a Work that is based on (or derived from) the 
Subject Software and for which the revisions, annotations, or other 
modifications, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship. Derivative 
Works shall not include (i) Works that remain separate from, or merely link to, 
the Subject Software, or (ii) additions to the Subject Software which are 
separable modules of software distributed in conjunction with the Subject 
Software, or parts of the Subject Software, under their own license agreement. 
Including Subject Software or parts thereof in a Larger Work is not in and of 
itself a Derivative Work.
E. “Larger Work” means software that combines Subject Software, or portions 
thereof, with software that remains separate from, or is merely linked to, the 
Subject Software and that is not governed by the terms of this Agreement.
F. “Original Software” means the software first released under this Agreement 
by Government Agency with the Government Agency designation and title listed 
above, including source code, object code and accompanying documentation, if 
any.
G.  “Subject Software” means the Original Software, Derivative Works, or  
Contributions, and any combination or respective parts thereof.
H. “Work” means an original work of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of 
expression, now known or later developed, from which it can be perceived, 
reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a 
machine or device, including Derivative Works.  A work is original if it is 
independently created by You, as opposed to copied from other works, and it 
possesses at least some minimal degree of creativity. 
I. “You” or “Your” means an individual or a legal entity exercising rights 
under, and complying with all the terms of, this Agreement. For legal entities, 
“You” or “Your” includes an entity and any other entity that controls, is 
controlled by, or is under common control with such entity. For the purposes of 
this definition, “control” means (i) the power, direct or indirect, to cause 
the direction or management of such entity, whether by contract or otherwise, 
or (ii) ownership of fifty percent (50%) or more of the outstanding shares, or 
(iii) beneficial ownership of such entity.

2. GRANT OF RIGHTS YOU RECEIVE (FROM UPSTREAM CONTRIBUTORS) ALONG WITH YOUR 
GRANT OF RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS IF YOU MAKE DERIVATIVE WORKS OF OR REDISTRIBUTE 
THE SUBJECT SOFTWARE (TO DOWNSTREAM RECIPIENTS)
A. Subject to, and, so long as You comply with, the terms and conditions of 
this Agreement, the Government hereby grants permission to You to use civil 
servant authored U.S. Government Work (17 U.S.C. § 105) portions of the Subject 
Software, if any, in the United States.
B. Under Non Patent Rights/Copyright License:  Subject to, and, so long as You 
comply with, the terms and conditions of this Agreement, each 

Re: IUPAC/InChI-Trust Licence DFSG-Compliant ?

[Dmitry Alexandrov]

> could you please clarify if the license below can be considered
> DFSG-compatible ?
>
> Section 2 doesn't sound very good

That’s extremely interesting.  Could you elaborate, please?

I did not wdiff(1) it, but it definitely sounds like a word-for-word copy of 
second GNU Lesser GPL to me.  :-)

> but section 3 says that GPL-2+ may be applied.

Sure.  The other sections gave me the same impression.

> Will it be fine to simply state that it is licensed under GPL-2+

Why?

> and also include the original license in d/copyright?

Re: GPLv3 source code with license check for some build configuration, DFSG ok?

[Dmitry Alexandrov]

> Let's restate the facts for the -legal crowd.

Interesting question.  Still no any response?  May some input from a passer-by 
(IANAL, IANADD) be helpful?

> I'm packaging ultracopier 1.2.3.6 which is under GPLv3 license. The source 
> code supports several build configuration, one of them being the ultimate 
> build. The ultimate build comes with a license check which terminates the 
> software if no key is input (ie. one hits the cancel button). For that 
> reason, 
> I'm not building that configuration so that the binary program that is being 
> built is free from any usage restriction. There is no mention of any 
> restriction in the COPYING, README.sources or README file, even for the 
> ultimate edition.

It is worth mentioning, that no closed list of places, where legal terms might 
be put, exists.

COPYING in sources’ root is just a canonical text of a model licence, which is 
usually  a ‘headless’ one, where the essential condition is still missed: 
*what* is licensed.

That part indeed might be in README, though in fact many free programs do not 
have any single specific agreement attached to them at all.  Instead each 
source file has its own: “This file is free software...” and so on.

Debian, by the way, reflects that style much more thoroughly than some other 
GNU distributions; you know, of course, ‘copyright’ file in packages is based 
on per-file analysis of sources rather than some general statements in 
documentation.

Despite the README, as you said, does state a licence for the whole program 
(GPLv3), the file that contains that key-checker might be still a place of 
special interest.  Are there some ‘overrides’?  Or anything else, that suggests 
that you are not free to simply remove it at all?

Webpage, where sources are downloaded from, is also important in my opinion.

I did a brief check of both these places:
— Key-checker is in ‘EventDispatcher.cpp’, as far as I can see; and this file 
explicitly mentions third GPL and nothing else, which does return you such a 
right.
— Download page is [0] — and I did not notice any further restrictions to GNU 
GPL there either.

[0] https://ultracopier.first-world.info/download-all.html

> The questions I was asking in the original thread on -mentors are:
>
> - Is a non-ultimate build DFSG ok?
> - Does the ultimate build respect the GPLv3?

I will raise slightly more questions, if you permit:


— Are sources of Ultracopier, as downloaded from [1], are free?  Are they under 
GNU GPL?

Given all the said, I cannot imagine a reason to say ‘no’ to either question.

The fact, that you are able to build something useless from them, should not 
alter it a bit.  Indeed, it might be quite hard sometimes to build anything 
useful from sources, and nonetheless them remains free.  :-)

[1] 
http://files.first-world.info/ultracopier/1.2.3.6/ultracopier-src-1.2.3.6.tar.xz


— Are builds (‘ultimate’ or whatever), as downloaded from the same site, free?

No idea.  Sorry, I just do not want to download and run them to study the case, 
since I see no practical value in doing that — you are not going to go 
redistribute these very builds, but make your own.


— Are non-‘ultimate’ builds made from sources [1] free?

I did not build them, but if I understand right what you’ve said, 
non-‘ultimate’ versions show self-advertisement to users.  That should not make 
them nonfree.  Firefox does something similar, am I remember right?


— Are ‘ultimate’ builds made from sources [0] are free?

You said, that your are not going to build them for Debian either, yet it might 
be interesting to share some thoughts on the question as it might eventually 
help to understand other questions better.

You said, you have concerns regarding the no-further-restrictions clause of the 
GNU GPL:

| You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the
| rights granted or affirmed under this License.  For example, you may
| not impose a license fee, royalty, or other charge for exercise of
| rights granted under this License, and you may not initiate
| litigation (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit)
| alleging that any patent claim is infringed by making, using,
| selling, offering for sale, or importing the Program or any portion
| of it.

Let we compare it with another practice that is common for builds of free 
software for nonfree systems — they require you to read and accept a licence 
agreement to install and use the program.  That is despite the fact that none 
of GNU licenses requires that.  Quite the opposite: they explicitly release a 
user from that.

This is a obvious further restriction, is not it?  Here’s what FSF thinks on 
this [2]:

| Can software installers ask people to click to agree to the GPL? If
| I get some software under the GPL, do I have to agree to anything?
| (#ClickThrough)
|
|Some software packaging systems have a place which requires you
|to click through or otherwise indicate assent to the terms of the
|GPL. 

Re: System libraries and the GPLv2

[Dmitry Alexandrov]

> On 26/03/17 01:01, Walter Landry wrote:
>> Florian Weimer  wrote:
 #5 Declare GMP to be a system library.

>>> (snip)
>>>
 #5 was how Fedora looked at the OpenSSL library issue. Since Debian
 has another viewpoint on OpenSSL I somehow doubt we would use it for
 GMP.
>>>
>>> I would like to suggest to treat more libraries as eligible for the
>>> system library exception within Debian.
>> 
>> The traditional interpretation as I understand it is that nothing
>> Debian ships qualifies for the the system exception.  This is because
>> Debian ships everything together, and the system exception only
>> applies for components that do not accompany the executable.
>> 
>
> Debian ships everything together? Really?

Yes.  http://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/current/amd64/iso-dvd/

Re: freeness and compatibility of CeCILL-C licence

[Dmitry Alexandrov]

[Sorry for sending unfinished letter.]

> Francesco Poli dislikes the choice of law and courts clause, but I
> think it's fine.

IBM PL v1.0 contains a choice of law clause and it’s listed as suitable for 
Debian’s main [0].

As for arbitration clause, could anyone explain, what’s the practical 
difference between ‘choice of law of N’ and stating that disputes should be 
resolved in *general jurisdiction* courts of N?  IMHO, they are effectively the 
same.

[0] https://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/

> (IMO it would not be fine if it specified Russian or Chinese courts.)

Interesting idea.  Any substantiation for such a discrimination of origin?

Re: freeness and compatibility of CeCILL-C licence

[Dmitry Alexandrov]

> Francesco Poli dislikes the choice of law and courts clause, but I
> think it's fine.  (IMO it would not be fine if it specified Russian or
> Chinese courts.)

Interesting idea.  Any substationation for such a discrimination of origin?

Re: Ask about the license "permissive"

[Dmitry Alexandrov]

> On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 at 20:50:10 +0300, Dmitry Alexandrov wrote:
>> > There is "permissive" used as name. Is this the correct name of the
>> > license?
>> 
>> It look like a simplified variation on so called ‘Historical
>> Permission Notice and Disclamer’ [0][1].  It is indeed a lax permissive
>> licence, so I see no problem.
>
> To be clear, there is probably no canonical name for this license. It
> is one of many permissive licenses, rather than being "the Permissive
> License".
>
> Permissive licenses typically need to be quoted in full in the Debian
> copyright file.

Any licence regardless of its conditions (permissive, copyleft or even 
nonfree), except the following ones, should be quoted in full, is not it?

,[ $ ls /usr/share/common-licenses/ ]
| Apache-2.0  BSD   GFDL-1.2  GPLGPL-2  LGPLLGPL-2.1
| ArtisticGFDL  GFDL-1.3  GPL-1  GPL-3  LGPL-2  LGPL-3
`

Re: Ask about the license "permissive"

[Dmitry Alexandrov]

> Hello,
>
> I want to adopt the package xtrkcad and I have a question about the
> license of app/tools/dirent.*.
>
> The license text is
> [quote]
>  Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its
>  documentation for any purpose is hereby granted without fee, provided
>  that this copyright and permissions notice appear in all copies and
>  derivatives.
>  .
>  This software is supplied "as is" without express or implied warranty.
> [/quote]
>
> I found the same text at[1]. 
>
> There is "permissive" used as name. Is this the correct name of the
> license?
>
> Many thanks!
>
>
> CU
> Jörg
>
> [1] https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/a/atanks/copyright-6.5~dfsg-2

It look like a simplified variation on so called ‘Historical Permission Notice 
and Disclamer’ [0][1].  It is indeed a lax permissive licence, so I see no 
problem.

[0] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#HPND
[1] 
https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:Historical_Permission_Notice_and_Disclaimer

Re: Ask about the license "permissive"

[Dmitry Alexandrov]

> Hello,
>
> I want to adopt the package xtrkcad and I have a question about the
> license of app/tools/dirent.*.
>
> The license text is
> [quote]
>  Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its
>  documentation for any purpose is hereby granted without fee, provided
>  that this copyright and permissions notice appear in all copies and
>  derivatives.
>  .
>  This software is supplied "as is" without express or implied warranty.
> [/quote]
>
> I found the same text at[1]. 
>
> There is "permissive" used as name. Is this the correct name of the
> license?
>
> Many thanks!
>
>
> CU
> Jörg
>
> [1] https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/a/atanks/copyright-6.5~dfsg-2

It looks like a simplified variation on so called ‘Historical Permission Notice 
and Disclaimer’ [0][1].  It is indeed a lax permissive licence, so I see no 
problem.

[0] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#HPND
[1] 
https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:Historical_Permission_Notice_and_Disclaimer

Re: drbdmanage EULA conforming to DFSG?

[Dmitry Alexandrov]

> Markus Frosch writes ("drbdmanage EULA conforming to DFSG?"):
>> I, myself, would consider the license non-free in terms of DFSG, due to this 
>> paragraph:
>>
>> > 3.4) Without prior written consent of LICENSOR or an authorized partner,
>> > LICENSEE is not allowed to:
>> > [...]
>> > b) provide commercial turn-key solutions based on the LICENSED
>> >SOFTWARE or commercial services for the LICENSED SOFTWARE or
>> >its modifications to any third party (e.g. software support or
>> >trainings).
>>
>> What's your opinion about that clause?
>
> Wow.  That's horrible.  This is definitely unacceptable for Debian.
>
> (I haven't read the rest of the licence.  It's been suggested on
> debian-legal that this is far from the only serious problem.)
>
>> > Is DRBD Manage open source software?
>> >
>> > Yes, the license meets OSI?^@^Ys Open Source Definition, it
>> > conforms to Debian?^@^Ys social contract, it conforms to
>> > Ubuntu?^@^Ys licensing policy and it is within Launchpad?^@^Ys
>> > licensing conditions.
>
> This is clearly false as regards acceptability to Debian.
> I doubt very much that they have talked to OSI or to Ubuntu.
>
> I have CC'd one of the OSI lists.  I couldn't find an appropriate list
> for Ubuntu.  Maybe someone else here knows how to bring this to the
> appropriate Ubuntu people's attention ?

le...@canonical.com, I guess.  That is not a mailing list, however.

Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?

[Dmitry Alexandrov]

> I reply myself... actually I think I have not understood your statements
> correctly, reading it again it seems that you think that the mrouted
> code is somewhat dual licensed with GPL or Stanford.txt and you can
> choose which one to apply. That's not the case, when combined into a GPL
> program both licenses are active and must be obeyed *at the same time*
> (supposing that they are compatible, which I doubt).

For what it’s worth, I am pretty sure that any version GNU GPL and 
‘Stanford.txt’ are *not* compatible because of jurisdiction choice clause of 
the latter:

,
| 6. This agreement shall be construed, interpreted and applied in
| accordance with the State of California and any legal action arising
| out of this Agreement or use of the Program shall be filed in a court
| in the State of California.
`

However, in case authors of igmpproxy are not bound by someone else’s copyleft 
(I did not check that), that should not be a unresolvable problem — they are 
able to give an excetion to allow such a combination.  One might even argue 
that by distributing their work they had given an implicit exception already.

Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?

[Dmitry Alexandrov]

> I do not know, but mrouted was relicensed to BSD in 2003 and igmpproxy 
> started in 2005 (according to year in source files). And because BSD is 
> compatible with GPL, you can relicense those parts to GPL and adds your 
> own GPL code to it. Then whole package can be redistributed only under 
> GPL...

Of course, you can *not* do this.  Nothing in any so called ‘BSD licence’ (and 
not any of them is GPL-compatible by the way) says that you have right to drop 
it in favour of GNU GPL.  They are not GNU Lesser GPL or MPLv2.  When two 
licences are ‘compatible’ that only means that works under them may be combined 
into a single work.

Re: Is the RAR archiver freely distributable?

[Dmitry Alexandrov]

>> > Are ‘key recovery tools’ illegal somewhere? Tools for circumventing
>> > digital restristions measures definitely are.
>>
>> If you use them on files you legally own, they are legal. They will be
>> illegal for cracking content for which you should not have access.
>
> Another way of saying that is: The tool isn't legal or illegal. It is
> specific *actions* by persons that is restricted by law.
>
>> The tool cannot differentiate, it can only do its job.
>
> Likewise, AFAIK the law doesn't make a tool illegal, only specific
> actions.

May I ask again, what law (what jurisdiction) are you talking about.  I am not 
familiar with North American laws, but there *is* a law prohibiting 
distribution of DRM-circumvention tools, for instance, in the Ukraine:

,[ Law on copyright and related rights ]
| Section V.  Protection of copyrigh and related right
|
| Article 50.  Violation of copyright and related rights
|
| Violations of copyright and (or) related rights, that give grounds for
| seeking remedy in court, are:
|
| ...
|
| e) any actions to deliberately circumvent technical measures of
| copyright (or related rights) protection, in particular: making,
| distributing, importing with the purpose of distributing, and using
| tools for such circumvention;
|
| ...
`(translation mine, cf. original at [0])

[0] http://zakon4.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/3792-12/page3

> I believe there are
> actively-enforced patents on DVD-CSS that prohibit distribution of, for
> example, free software that opens files encrypted with that scheme. If
> the Debian Project distributes such a tool, it *is* violating an
> actively-enforced law.

As far as I know, libdvdcss2 is a bruteforcing tool.  There could be no patents 
on brute-force.

Re: Is the RAR archiver freely distributable?

[Dmitry Alexandrov]

>> >> > If so I will consider whether to write a cracker or key generator for
>> >> > RAR and upload it to unstable!
>> >>
>> >> Do you really belive that *this* is acceptable?  This kind of
>> >> software (‘cracks’ at least) is illegal in many jurisdictions.
>> >
>> > Key recovery tools for weakly encrypted archive formats have been
>> > common for decades.  There are probably some in Debian already.
>>
>> Are ‘key recovery tools’ illegal somewhere?  Tools for circumventing
>> digital restristions measures definitely are.
>
> If you use them on files you legally own, they are legal. They will be
> illegal for cracking content for which you should not have access.

State of affairs in what jurisdiction are you describing?  If you try to 
convince that Debian may safely ignore laws of the states where the situation 
is opposite, why does not it distribute, for instance, libdvdcss2 then?

Re: Is the RAR archiver freely distributable?

[Dmitry Alexandrov]

>> In a nutshell, the preamble of the new license seems to transform it
>> into a license agreement:

Sorry, I have not got the point.  What it was before if not a licence agreement?

> To save others finding the licence, here it is:
>
>http://www.win-rar.com/winrarlicense.html?=0

I suppose, providing the full text would be even better.  Here is the licence 
of RAR 5.3.b2-1 from Debian’s non-free repository:

Copyright (c) 1993-2006 Alexander Roshal 

This software is shareware.

  The RAR Archiver
  EULA (End User License Agreement) for use and distribution


  The RAR archiver is distributed as try before you buy. This means:

   1. All copyrights to RAR are exclusively owned by the author
  - Alexander Roshal.

   2. Anyone may use this software during a test period of 40 days.
  Following this test period of 40 days or less, if you wish to
  continue to use RAR, you must purchase a license.

   3. There are 2 basic types of licenses issued for RAR, these are:
 
  a.  A single computer usage license. The user purchases one license
  to use RAR archiver on one computer.

  Home users may use their single computer usage license on
  all computers which are in property of the license owner.

  Business users require one license per computer RAR is
  installed on.

  b.  A multiple usage license. The user purchases a number of usage
  licenses for use, by the purchaser or the purchaser's employees
  on the same number of computers.

  In a network (server/client) environment you must purchase
  a license copy for each separate client (workstation)
  on which RAR is installed, used, or accessed. A separate
  license copy for each client (workstation) is needed regardless
  of whether the clients (workstations) will use RAR simultaneously
  or at different times. If for example you wish to have
  9 different clients (workstations) in your network with access
  to RAR, you must purchase 9 license copies.

  A user who purchased a RAR license, is granted a non-exclusive
  right to use RAR on as many computers as defined by the licensing
  terms above according to the number of licenses purchased,
  for any legal purpose. The licensed RAR software may not be rented
  or leased, but may be permanently transferred, in it's entirety,
  if the person receiving it agrees to the terms of this license.
  If the software is an update, the transfer must include the update
  and all previous versions.  

   4. Licensing for RAR on mobile devices (U3 stick, USB stick,
  external harddrive):

  In addition to the terms stated above following licensing terms
  apply to the licensing of RAR on mobile devices.

  a.  A single computer usage license. Home users may use their
  single computer usage license on all mobile devices which are
  in property of the license owner.

  Business users may use their single computer usage license
  on one computer and one mobile device.

  b.  A multiple usage license. Users who own a multiple usage
  license may use that license on the same number of mobile
  devices as number of computers (clients) the license was
  purchased for.

  The number of computers/devices running RAR at any time is
  limited to the number of licenses purchased according to the
  licensing terms above.

  A licensed version of RAR on a mobile device may be used by
  the purchaser or the purchaser's employees, on several computers
  consecutively.

  There are no additional license fees, apart from the cost of
  purchasing a license, associated with the use of RAR from
  a mobile device on computers that are not owned by the owner
  of the RAR license.

   5. The RAR/WinRAR unlicensed trial version may be freely distributed,
  with exceptions noted below, provided the distribution package is not
  modified in any way.
  
  a.  No person or company may distribute separate parts of the package
  with the exception of the UnRAR components, without written
  permission of the copyright owner.
  
  b.  The RAR/WinRAR unlicensed trial version may not be distributed
  inside of any other software package without written permission
  of the copyright owner.

  c.  Hacks/cracks, keys or key generators may not be included on the
  same distribution.

   6. To buy a license please see order.htm for details.

   7. THE RAR ARCHIVER IS DISTRIBUTED "AS IS". NO WARRANTY OF ANY
  KIND IS EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED. YOU USE AT YOUR OWN RISK.
  NEITHER THE AUTHOR NOR THE AGENTS OF THE AUTHOR WILL BE LIABLE 
  FOR DATA LOSS, DAMAGES, LOSS OF PROFITS OR ANY OTHER KIND OF LOSS
  WHILE USING OR MISUSING THIS SOFTWARE.

   8. There are no 

Re: GPL with exclusive re-licensing exception (BSD3)

[Dmitry Alexandrov]

"IOhannes m zmölnig (Debian/GNU)"  writes:

I am not a lawyer, this is not a legal advice.

> is it possible/feasible/DFSG-compatible to have software licensed under
> the GPL2+, but with a special explicit license-grant as BSD-3 to a
> single person for a specific project?

Whether is feasible, depends on what are you trying to achieve, but
there is no such *permissive* exception from a free software licence
that makes it non-free (= DFSG-incompatible).  When it is done
correctly, of course.

> something like the following:

Honestly, I do not think that this is a good wording.

>> # License Grant
>> FROBNOZZLE is released under the Gnu GPL version 2 (or later).
>> See LICENSE.md for the full text of the GPLv2.

There is a canonical header for GNU GPL-covered files — you could find
it in the GNU GPL itself under ‘How to apply...’ section.  And I do not
see any reason to avoid using it.  For the GNU GPLv2+ it looks like
that:

Copyright (C)  

This file is part of FROBNOZZLE.

FROBNOZZLE is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
(at your option) any later version.

FROBNOZZLE is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU
General Public License for more details.

You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
along with FROBNOZZLE; if not, see .

>> ## Special license grant to FOO BAR
>> I hereby grant FOO BAR the exclusive right to include FROBNOZZLE into
>> GOBBLEFUNK under the BSD 3-clause license under which GOBBLEFUNK is
>> currently released.
>>
>> Once it has been included into GOBBLEFUNK. it is of course
>> re-distributable under that license. Until then, the Gnu GPL v2 (or
>> later) applies.

First of all, why singular ‘I’, if the whole point of this is to get this
permission from all contributors?

But what is more important, is that ‘BSD 3-clause license’ is not a
proper name of a licence to be referred solely by it.  The licence you
imply actually has no proper name, since it was intended merely as
in-project licence for BSD, not for a wide usage as GNU GPL was.  You
had better provide its full text [0].

As for the method of attaching an exception to GNU GPL, if you were used
the current version of GNU GPL (the third), then you could make use of a
nice mechanism of ‘additional permissions’ under section 7.  If you’d
like to stick to GNU GPLv2+, you have to be a bit more verbose.  In any
case see [1] for examples.

[0] http://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:BSD_3Clause
[1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs

> so the backstory is: upstream has written an extension FROBNOZZLE to the
> BSD3-licensed application GOBBLEFUNK. they would like to have it
> included into that application proper; but in the meantime or if the
> maintainer of GOBBLEFUNK is not interested, upstream would prefer if
> FROBNOZZLE was made available under the GPL.
>
> i guess, the normal way would be just to release under the GPL, and if
> necessary re-license the software under BSD after private negotiation
> with FOO BAR.
> however, re-licensing requires to contact all copyright holders, and
> have them agree on the new license.
> to ease this, upstream wants to get the permission of potential
> contributors for relicensing it under the more liberal license (under
> certain conditions).
>
> thus this make sense?

Re: Bug#826379: Maintaining of CodeBlocks

[Dmitry Alexandrov]

"Tobias Frost"  writes:

> As far as I understood it BSD-4-clause is only free because the Regents of the
> UC dropped the advertising clause in
> ftp://ftp.cs.berkeley.edu/pub/4bsd/README.Impt.License.Change. So IMHO the
> current case is clearly non-free...

Nope.  4-BSDL is free because was always free (= it granted all
essential freedoms).  By dropping advertising clause Regents of UC
changed the licence of software that was *exclusively owned* by UC, but
they had no power to re-licence any other work that was covered by
4-clause (or any other variant of) BSDL.

Re: Is mpage DFSG compatible?

[Dmitry Alexandrov]

On 19/10/15 17:26, Ian Jackson wrote:

A copyright licence does not need to be in writing.  (In the UK, at
least[1], and I would be surprised it if were different elsewhere.)

Of course in practice it is a good idea to have a clear and explicit
statement, in writing, but that doesn't mean that a license can't be
implied (or oral, for that matter).


Let me surprise you then. At least in Russia and in the Ukraine a 
copyright license should be in writing (with certain exceptions, but 
there is no software licenses among them).


This is clearly stated in the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, 
article 1286, paragraph 2 [1] and in the Civil Code of the Ukraine, 
article 1107, paragraph 2 [2] respectively.


[1]: 
https://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_64629/5023e7ec1885fe99c14e29a9e328c664a001f599/

[2]: http://www.intellect.ua/patent/law/code/civilcode/75/1107