Re: Bug#838414: gpick: colors.txt is non-free
Hello, On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 9:45 PM, Ben Finney <bign...@debian.org> wrote: > Elías Alejandro <eal...@gmail.com> writes: > >> Could you review this issue? > > What kind of review are you asking for? What new information has > appeared that prompts a review? > > For what it's worth, I agree with the earlier assessment that the > restriction on usage violates DFSG §6. > > Further, the term “use” is hopelessly vague and AFAIK null in copyright. > There are various common interpretations of what actions “use” could > mean in a copyright license text, that are incompatible with each other. > Better to change the conditions to be specific about what actions are > permitted. > I understood the terms "These RGB colour formulations" are more about how they made this color list and the names for each color and color codes. I'm not sure but probably they made this list under their own way and not under "standards". In this way, it may not be used to the detriment of them because of this. Maybe you have another interpretation. Best regards. Elías Alejandro
Re: Bug#838414: gpick: colors.txt is non-free
Dear Debian-legal team, On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 6:46 PM, Francesco Poli (wintermute) <invernom...@paranoici.org> wrote: > Package: gpick > Version: 0.2.5-2 > Severity: serious > Justification: Policy 2.2.1 > > > Hello and thanks for maintaining this little tool in Debian! > > I noticed that the license for file share/gpick/colors.txt fails > to meet the DFSG, as it includes at least one non-free restriction. > Clause 5 states: > > | 5. These RGB colour formulations may not be used to the detriment of > | Resene Paints Ltd. > > This is a non-free restriction on use, which does not comply with > DFSG#6 (No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor). > > This file is therefore unfit for the main Debian archive. > > Possible solutions I can think of: > > A) get in touch with the colors.txt copyright holders (Resene Paints > Ltd.) and persuade them to drop the troublesome clause or, even > better, to re-license the file under well-known and widely used > DFSG-free terms (such as, for instance, the 3-clause BSD license > adopted by the rest of gpick) > > B) find a DFSG-free replacement for share/gpick/colors.txt and use it > in stead of the non-free one > > C) drop share/gpick/colors.txt from the package, if possible > > D) move the gpick package to the non-free archive (I hope this will > *not* happen!) > > I hope solution A may be persued soon. > Solution B (or C) may be chosen as a temporary quick fix, while trying > to achieve solution A. > Could you review this issue? This bug is reach the the old-stable version of gpick too. Best regards, Elías Alejandro
about licensing
Hi all, I have a doubt about licensing. Recently I was adopting a package and new upstream release recomend libcurl4-openssl-dev as build dependency instead libcurl4-gnutls-dev. Upstream author released it under LGPL as usual. Furthermore previous Debian versions was released under GPL-3 but I've noticed it could be a GPL violation with OpenSSL license (due this new upstream version) I'm not sure if LGPL and OpenSSL are compatible but, it could be fixed if re-licensing Debian packaging under LGPL instead GPL-3? or what can I do to fix it? Best regards, -- Elías -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110523230124.GA4202@debianero
