picviz license (generated images as derivative work ?)
Hi, Since a few versions, the picviz [1] license has changed for the following: ---8 Describes the terms under which Picviz is distributed. A copy of the GPL is appended after the specific Picviz license terms. * *** Specific Picviz license terms *** * BEGIN Picviz means: Picviz parsers, Picviz library (libpicviz), Picviz command line interface (CLI) and Picviz graphical user interface (GUI). Note that the GPL places important restrictions on derived works, yet it does not provide a detailed definition of that term. To avoid misunderstandings, we consider an application to constitute a derivative work for the purpose of this license if it does any of the following: o Integrates source code from Picviz o Integrates images generated by Picviz o Executes Picviz and parses the results (as opposed to typical shell or execution-menu apps, which simply display raw Picviz output and so are not derivative works.) o Integrates/includes/aggregates Picviz into a proprietary executable installer, such as those produced by InstallShield. o Links to a library or executes a program that does any of the above The term Picviz should be taken to also include any portions or derived works of Picviz. This list is not exclusive, but is meant to clarify our interpretation of derived works with some common examples. Our interpretation applies only to Picviz--we don't speak for other people's· GPL works. /END GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Version 3, 29 June 2007 [... text of GPLv3 ...] ---8 Note: picviz is a parallel coordinates plotter which takes data (text) as input and creates an image (png, jpeg, etc.). As the maintainer of the picviz Debian package, my question is the following: Are the clarifications added to the license, and especially the fact that generated images by picviz, considered to be additional restrictions, and do they cause problems with respect to the DFSG ? Thanks, Pierre [1] http://www.picviz.com -- 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/20120225144540.ga6...@mail.wzdftpd.net
license for eSvn
Hi, I'm currently evaluating if eSvn (http://esvn.umputun.com/) can be package for debian. I wanted to know if the license is acceptable for 'main' (see attachement for complete file). In short: eSvn is available under two different licenses: If eSvn is linked against the GPLed version of Qt eSvn is released under the terms of GPL also. If eSvn is linked against a nonGPLed version of Qt eSvn is released under the terms of the eSvn License for non-Unix platforms It also seems that the application is GPL for unix platforms. Please CC: me on reply, I'm not subscribed. Thanks, Pierre. eSvn is available under two different licenses: If eSvn is linked against the GPLed version of Qt eSvn is released under the terms of GPL also. If eSvn is linked against a nonGPLed version of Qt eSvn is released under the terms of the eSvn License for non-Unix platforms eSvn License for non-Unix platforms: Redistribution and use in binary form, without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: 1. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. 2. It is not permitted to distribute the binary package under a name different than eSvn. 3. The name of the authors may not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. 4. The source code is the creative property of the authors. Extensions and development under the terms of the Gnu Public License are limited to the Unix platform. Any distribution or compilation of the source code against libraries licensed other than gpl requires the written permission of the authors. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE AUTHOR AS IS AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. eSvn License for Unix platforms: This program 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. This program 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.
Re: license for eSvn
On Mon, Sep 06, 2004 at 04:51:11PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: * Sven Luther: I'd rather see a clarification from upstream. If they intent to prevent a GPLed Windows port, it's non-free. If they just want to make sure that people may distribute Windows binaries, it's probably okay. Well, the only way giving this licencing would be the absense of a GPLed port of Qt to windows, wouldn't it ? This hardly makes eSvn non-free, not anymore than our dual-licenced Qt does. That depends entirely on the meaning of the headlines, unfortunately. If Pierre wants to approach upstream on this matter, he should request a change to Licensing Option 1 and Licensing Option 2, to make clear that eSvn is dual-licensed independently of the operating system that is used. I asked the author of esvn, which confirmed that the license is GPL, so now I think there is no problem to consider packaging esvn in 'main' section. Here is his answer: = This license is GPL for all platform with GPL-ed version of QT include Linux, so the license for the Debian will be GPL as well. If I made it not clear, please let me know what I need to change in the license and I'll do it. I have read the discussion, and have added GPL notices to all source files. regards, Eugene Bort Regards, Pierre
Re: license for eSvn
On Mon, Sep 06, 2004 at 07:46:23PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit Pierre Chifflier [EMAIL PROTECTED] Here is his answer: = This license is GPL for all platform with GPL-ed version of QT include ^ Linux, so the license for the Debian will be GPL as well. If I made it not clear, please let me know what I need to change in the license and I'll do it. I doubt this enough; it sounds awfully like a license specific to Debian. In order to be free by virtue by GPL, the GPL-ness must *not* be restricted by platform. It must be possible for a user to port the code to another (GPL-compatible) user interface toolkit than Qt and use it under GPL no matter whether Qt is available at all for the platform in question. I know the license must not be specific to debian, and this is *not* what he said. In fact the author applied the same kind of license than Qt does: linux (and ALL other distros than debian also) - GPL windows: do we care here ? (the answer anyway is: redistribution permitted, under some restrictions). The author also added the GPL mention that was missing on some files. As long as the license is not debian specific and is GPL, and that this kind of license is already used by other debian packages I see no objections on this package. Sven Luther wrote: Mmm, now he can get the GPLed version, and compile it against a QPLed version of Qt, and distribute the result ? Yes Regards, Pierre
Re: license for eSvn
On Mon, Sep 06, 2004 at 08:05:24PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: and that this kind of license is already used by other debian packages Which packages? If that is true, bugs should be filed and packages moved to non-free, preferrably before sarge releases if at all possible. lincvs. Which has been accepted a long time ago into main. But please consider the fact that the author acts in good faith and has made efforts to adapt the license. It would be a good things to propose him some changes on the license so it can be acceptable here. According to his last reply, he would be ready to make some changes. The author is also looking at other license like the one for 'psi', which has an exception for the Commercial version of Qt. I really hope we will not go into a license war, and thanks all people here for their help :) Regards, Pierre
updated: Re: license for eSvn
Ok, i contacted the author again and he agreed to change his license to something in agreement with his thoughts (which were: GPL, and also permitted to link with Qt commercial WITHOUT restrictions !) So the final license is: GPL, with an explicit exception allowing linking with any version of Qt without having to redistribute sources of Qt. (that is the license of psi package) Modifications and redistributions are explicitely permitted, so now I believe that this thread can be ended. Thanks to all for their suggestions, and to the esvn author for his efforts. Regards, Pierre
