Re: Unsure about a License with mandatory attribution clause
On Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 11:31:05PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote: > My conclusion is that this is a DFSG-free license, with an > unconventionally specific requirement of attribution. Thank you and Simon for your expertise! -- PGP-encrypted mails preferred PGP Fingerprint: 74CD D9FE 5BCB FE0D 13EE 8EEA 61F3 4426 74DE 6624 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Unsure about a License with mandatory attribution clause
Andreas Moog writes: > while packaging libml I noticed the following part in a license text: > (https://github.com/volkszaehler/libsml/blob/master/test/unity/license.txt) > > The end-user documentation included with the redistribution, if any, > must include the following acknowledgment: "This product includes > software developed for the Unity Project, by Mike Karlesky, Mark > VanderVoord, and Greg Williams and other contributors", in the same > place and form as other third-party acknowledgments. Alternately, > this acknowledgment may appear in the software itself, in the same > form and location as other such third-party acknowledgments. This is more specific, but IMO not more onerous, than attribution clauses in the BSD licenses. So the questions to answer, I think, are: Does this restrict the recipient's freedoms under DFSG? * Attribution requirement is, in general, considered DFSG-free. * The clause only takes effect if there is already “end-user documentation”. All Debian packages must be distributed with end-user documentation; the ‘debian/copyright’ file is part of that, as you point out. * The attribution states a fact that will, I believe, remain true so long as the software continues. (Some licenses, e.g. the FDL, require preserving statements of fact that are not always true. So it's good to consider this question.) * The clause also allows for the notice to appear “in the same form and location as other such third-party acknowledgements”. So, that definitely describes the ‘debian/copyright’ file. My conclusion is that this is a DFSG-free license, with an unconventionally specific requirement of attribution. I would prefer that the copyright holders should choose a conventional well-understood license, but I don't see that this one causes any specific problem for Debian recipients. -- \“Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability.” —Edsger W. | `\ Dijkstra | _o__) | Ben Finney
Re: Unsure about a License with mandatory attribution clause
On Sat, 17 Jun 2017 at 12:52:06 +0200, Andreas Moog wrote: > The end-user documentation included with the redistribution, if > any, must include the following acknowledgment: "This product > includes software developed for the Unity Project, by Mike Karlesky, > Mark VanderVoord, and Greg Williams and other contributors", in > the same place and form as other third-party acknowledgments. In Debian, third-party acknowledgements of this form appear in /usr/share/doc/*/copyright, which is part of the end-user documentation in /usr/share/doc. So I think this is fine: documenting the license in /usr/share/doc/*/copyright, which you are already required to do, is enough to comply with this clause. (I'm sure we have a lot of software with similar license clauses.) S
Unsure about a License with mandatory attribution clause
Hi, while packaging libml I noticed the following part in a license text: (https://github.com/volkszaehler/libsml/blob/master/test/unity/license.txt) The end-user documentation included with the redistribution, if any, must include the following acknowledgment: "This product includes software developed for the Unity Project, by Mike Karlesky, Mark VanderVoord, and Greg Williams and other contributors", in the same place and form as other third-party acknowledgments. Alternately, this acknowledgment may appear in the software itself, in the same form and location as other such third-party acknowledgments. Now I'm a little bit unsure if this is good for distribution and building against in Debian, especially what is considered "end-user documentation". Is the "end-user documentation" part satisfied by providing the license in /usr/share/doc//copyright? Thanks for your help! -- PGP-encrypted mails preferred PGP Fingerprint: 74CD D9FE 5BCB FE0D 13EE 8EEA 61F3 4426 74DE 6624 signature.asc Description: PGP signature