Re: Is ISC License considered DFSG free?

[Jari Aalto]

2016-10-22 14:55 Paul Tagliamonte :
| Quote me on this:
| 
| ISC meets the DFSG, with my ftp hat on.

Thanks Paul for confirming. Other can now found the infor at
https://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses#ISC_license

Jari

Re: Is ISC License considered DFSG free?

[Jari Aalto]

2016-10-21 22:42 Ben Finney <bign...@debian.org>:
| Jari Aalto <jari.aa...@cante.net> writes:
|
| > The agrep software is currently in non-free. Latest code
| > appears to have moved under ISC License[1]
|
| > [1] http://webglimpse.net/sublicensing/licensing.html
| All required DFSG freedoms are granted by this text.
|
| The conditions do not impose any non-free restrictions.
|
| By my reading, the grant and conditions are exactly equivalent to the
| well-understood Expat license grant and conditions.
|
| This work, provided its complete license grant and conditions was only
| the above text, would IMO be uncontroversially DFSG-free.

Excellent summary Ben.

Do you think, if it would be good if I added note about ISC
license to the Debian License information page[1] and point
it to this thread for future reference?

Jari

[1] https://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses

Is ISC License considered DFSG free?

[Jari Aalto]

Der Debian legal mailing list members,

The agrep software is currently in non-free. Latest code
appears to have moved under ISC License[1] and I'd like to know
if the code can now be moved to main.

Here is test recorded to SPDX database[2]:

ISC License:

Copyright (c) 2004-2010 by Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. ("ISC")
Copyright (c) 1995-2003 by Internet Software Consortium

Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this
software for any purpose with or without fee is hereby
granted, provided that the above copyright notice and
this permission notice appear in all copies.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND ISC DISCLAIMS ALL
WARRANTIES WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL
IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO
EVENT SHALL ISC BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT,
INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES
WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS,
WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER
TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH
THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.


Thanks,
Jari

[1] http://webglimpse.net/sublicensing/licensing.html

(...) Webglimpse and Glimpse are available under the ISC
open source license (...)

Anyone distributing the Glimpse code should include the
following license:

Copyright 1996, Arizona Board of Regents on behalf of The
University of Arizona.

Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this
software for any purpose with or without fee is hereby
granted, provided that the above copyright notice and this
permission notice appear in all copies.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS
ALL WARRANTIES WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL
IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO
EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT,
INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER
RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN
ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION,
ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE
OF THIS SOFTWARE.

[2] https://spdx.org/licenses/ISC

Debian WWW use OPL - which is declared non-DFSG free?

[Jari Aalto]

See this:

Debian WWW Pages License
http://www.debian.org/license

This material may be distributed only subject to the terms and
conditions set forth in the Open Publication License, Draft v1.0 or
later (you can read our local copy, the latest version is usually
available at http://www.opencontent.org/openpub/).

And then this:

Debian-legal summary of the OPL
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/03/msg00226.html

Debian-legal has concluded that the OPL (Open Publication License)
 v1.0 is not a DFSG-free license

To me, it looks like a contradiction. Should the WWW pages be relicensed
using DFSG compatible licence? According to

...Licenses that are DFSG-incompatible
http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses

Th OPL is in the black list.

Jari

-- 
Welcome to FOSS revolution: we fix and modify until it shines


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

What is the most restrictive DFSG approved Commercialism prohibited

[Jari Aalto]

I need to talk to upstrem that wants to prohibit commercial use of the
software. What Licence I should suggest to him?

The current hand written license permits the software to be used in
GPL programs -- except the ssoftware cannot be used for commercial
purposes.

Jari



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[DSFG] question: Custom hand written notice

[Jari Aalto]

I'm preparing a package and would like to hear if this licence
(author's voice) is DSFG free. I intend to add this to
debian/copyright:

License:

The snow source code and the algorithms contained within it are free
for non-commercial use. Licences for commercial single-customer
applications will usually be granted free of charge, but contact the
author for confirmation. 

Notes:

(*)As of 29 May 1999 the source code has changed from being public
domain to being free for non-commercial use. However, commercial users
are automatically granted a licence for any use of the snow code and
algorithms deployed before this date.

Also in what section would this software go: main, non-free?

Jari


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [DSFG] question: Custom hand written notice

[Jari Aalto]

Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 11:04:32AM +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:

 I'm preparing a package and would like to hear if this licence
 (author's voice) is DSFG free. I intend to add this to
 debian/copyright:

 License:

 The snow source code and the algorithms contained within it are free
 for non-commercial use. Licences for commercial single-customer
 applications will usually be granted free of charge, but contact the
 author for confirmation. 

 Certainly not; this is a clear use restriction.

 Notes:

 (*)As of 29 May 1999 the source code has changed from being public
 domain to being free for non-commercial use. However, commercial users
 are automatically granted a licence for any use of the snow code and
 algorithms deployed before this date.

 Also in what section would this software go: main, non-free?

 This seems to be the same question as the one you asked above?  Perhaps you
 meant to ask first whether it's ok for Debian to distribute it.  

Yes, this was the intention of the second question.

 Anyway, I don't see anything in this license that constitutes
 permission to redistribute; given that the author apparently also
 doesn't know what public domain means, I certainly wouldn't rely
 on perceived implicit permission to redistribute the code when
 putting it into non-free.

So the correct procedure, in order to submit the package to Debian, is
to get the Author to agree with a licence that's in par with DSFG. I'll
see what I can do.

Btw, is DSFG close to OSI approved or are there list somewhere that
describes the difference?

Thanks,
Jari


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]