Re: FRR package in Debian violates the GPL licence

[Thorsten Alteholz]

On Mon, 18 Mar 2019, Giacomo wrote:


On March 18, 2019 4:44:09 PM UTC, Paul Jakma  wrote:

On Mon, 18 Mar 2019, Giovanni Mascellani wrote:


I think I have seen MIT/BSD pieces of code in most of the GPL

projects

I have looked into.


Nothing in the advice I have received precludes the happy co-existence
of MIT/BSD code with GPL code in the same project.


You might want to have a look at [1]. Each module might have its own 
license but the whole work has to be licensed under GPL.

Maybe [2] helps as well when you replace "public domain" by MIT license.

  Thorsten



[1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.en.html#IfLibraryIsGPL
[2] 
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.en.html#CombinePublicDomainWithGPL

Re: Hacking License

[Thorsten Alteholz]

Hi Giacomo,

On Fri, 7 Dec 2018, Giacomo Tesio wrote:

If you can help me understand the problems you see, we could try to
design a new test that make them evident together.


some terms are ambiguous and need to be defined. For example how do 
you want to use "shall"?

What is an organization? Is a one man company an organization or a user?
What are activities?

According to your definitions:
 "Hacker" refers to any Copyright holder of the Hack.
 "Copyright" means copyright-like laws that apply to other literary works.

As a conclusion: "Hacker" refers to any copyright-like law holder of the 
Hack. This does not make sense.


Further: "Human" is every live being with humans among its genetic 
ancestors.
Is a trout a human? Yes, because a trout is a live being that has other 
trouts among its genetic ancestors.

What is the trout readable form of the software?

"know-how required to perform any of the activities" is not specific 
enough. What exactly do I have to give the user?


These are only the verbal shortcomings that came to my mind after reading 
your text.


Organizations get less grants, this is clearly against DFSG #6. Even 
Organizations need to modify the code.


Currently I can sell Debian on CDs. According to 3.4, if software under 
the HACK license is in Debian I am not allowed to do this anymore. This is 
against DFSG #9.


This license text is so vague that its consequences for Debian users are 
not clear. So if it were up to me, I would not accept software under this 
license to be part of Debian. I would even struggle with me to accept 
it for the non-free part.


Sorry, Debian is open for new licenses all the time, but I am afraid the 
HACK license needs a fair amount of rework.


  Thorsten

Re: Is ISC License considered DFSG free?

[Thorsten Alteholz]

Hi Jari,

On Sat, 22 Oct 2016, Jari Aalto wrote:

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?


yes, please do. I wonder why nobody has done that before.

Thanks!
 Thorsten

Re: ad hoc license: is it DFSG-conformant ?

[Thorsten Alteholz]

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