Re: Bug#318204: ITP: php-simpletest -- Unit testing and web testing framework for PHP

2005-07-19 Thread Francesco Poli
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 22:08:55 -0400 Joe Smith wrote:

[...]
 3. Requireng the changes to be noted in-file is problematic.The rest
 is even  more problematic seeming.
 Requiring naming changes may not be DFSG-Free. The clause in the
 guidelines  seems to refer to
 package names, not executable names. Requiring inclusion of the
 Standard  Version is probably Non-Free.

Requiring inclusion of the Standard Version is non-free, IMHO as well.
You will never be able to fix a bug that the Copyright Holder does not
want to fix.
This clause restrict modification and thus fails DFSG#3.

 
 4. This clause is confusing. It implies that I must distribute the
 Standard  Version along with
 the modified versions, but the latter part about documenting where the
 standard version can
 be obtained, imply that I do not.

It's misleading, but the problem is that it's non-free for the same
reason clause 3 is...

-- 
:-(   This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS?   ;-)
..
  Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4


pgpP16RLJZh3s.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: Bug#318204: ITP: php-simpletest -- Unit testing and web testing framework for PHP

2005-07-18 Thread Joe Smith

Licence text included at end of mail.
I'll go over the licence part by part.

Preamble: Belive it or not a preamble is not legally a no-op. It establishes 
intent which is sometimes

more important than the actual wording.

Definitions: There is nothing important in this section. The relevence of 
this text come into play only

in the numbered sections.

1. OK
2. The words public domain in this clause are very interesting. Does this 
mean that
I can make any changes at all that I want as long as I disavow copyright? 
Public
domain is usually thought of as works that are not eligable for copyright, 
have

expired, or have had copyright disavowed.

3. Requireng the changes to be noted in-file is problematic.The rest is even 
more problematic seeming.
Requiring naming changes may not be DFSG-Free. The clause in the guidelines 
seems to refer to
package names, not executable names. Requiring inclusion of the Standard 
Version is probably Non-Free.


4. This clause is confusing. It implies that I must distribute the Standard 
Version along with
the modified versions, but the latter part about documenting where the 
standard version can

be obtained, imply that I do not.

5-9. Clauses similar to these appear in other free licences.

Realisticly the licence is intended to be free. The licence was designed to 
ensure that people did not run
non-standard tests thinking they where standard tests. However requiring the 
inclusion of the Standard Version

is probably going too far.
So I vote for not including the package.

IANADD, IANAL, TINLA
--
Preamble
The intent of this document is to state the conditions under which a Package 
may be copied, such that the Copyright Holder maintains some semblance of 
artistic control over the development of the package, while giving the users 
of the package the right to use and distribute the Package in a more-or-less 
customary fashion, plus the right to make reasonable modifications.


Testing is essential for proper development and maintenance of 
standards-based products.


For buyers: adequate conformance testing leads to reduced integration costs 
and protection of investments in applications, software and people.


For software developers: conformance testing of platforms and middleware 
greatly reduces the cost of developing and maintaining multi-platform 
application software.


For suppliers: In-depth testing increases customer satisfaction and keeps 
development and support costs in check. API conformance is highly measurable 
and suppliers who claim it must be able to substantiate that claim.


As such, since these are benchmark measures of conformance, we feel the 
integrity of test tools is of importance. In order to preserve the integrity 
of the existing conformance modes of this test package and to permit 
recipients of modified versions of this package to run the original test 
modes, this license requires that the original test modes be preserved.


If you find a bug in one of the standards mode test cases, please let us 
know so we can feed this back into the original, and also raise any 
specification issues with the appropriate bodies (for example the POSIX 
committees).


Definitions:

 a.. Package refers to the collection of files distributed by the 
Copyright Holder, and derivatives of that collection of files created 
through textual modification.
 b.. Standard Version refers to such a Package if it has not been 
modified, or has been modified in accordance with the wishes of the 
Copyright Holder.
 c.. Copyright Holder is whoever is named in the copyright or copyrights 
for the package. You is you, if you're thinking about copying or 
distributing this Package.
 d.. Reasonable copying fee is whatever you can justify on the basis of 
media cost, duplication charges, time of people involved, and so on. (You 
will not be required to justify it to the Copyright Holder, but only to the 
computing community at large as a market that must bear the fee.)
 e.. Freely Available means that no fee is charged for the item itself, 
though there may be fees involved in handling the item. It also means that 
recipients of the item may redistribute it under the same conditions they 
received it.
1. You may make and give away verbatim copies of the source form of the 
Standard Version of this Package without restriction, provided that you 
duplicate all of the original copyright notices and associated disclaimers.


2. You may apply bug fixes, portability fixes and other modifications 
derived from the Public Domain or from the Copyright Holder. A Package 
modified in such a way shall still be considered the Standard Version.


3. You may otherwise modify your copy of this Package in any way, provided 
that you insert a prominent notice in each changed file stating how and when 
you changed that file, and provided that you do at least the following:


 rename any non-standard executables and testcases so the names do not 
conflict with standard executables and 

Re: Bug#318204: ITP: php-simpletest -- Unit testing and web testing framework for PHP

2005-07-14 Thread Charles Fry
  * License : The Open Group Test Suite License
 
 I'm not optimistic about this licence being DFSG-free.

Hi,

I was wondering if Debian-legal could offer any insight on this matter.
I searched the mailing list archives, and found no explicit discussion
of this license. The only potentially problematic clauses I see are
those that ensure that the original test modes be preserved.

To my untrained eye this seems to be a variation of The license may
require derived works to carry a different name or version number from
the original software, with the exception that the original test cases
must also be provided, along with the derived works.

Could you please provide me with some official Debian advise on this
matter?

thanks,
Charles

-- 
Tested
In peace
Proven in war
Better now
Than ever before
Burma-Shave
http://burma-shave.org/jingles/1945/tested


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature