Hi Chris, Quoting Chris Liddell (2015-01-08 08:31:45) > On 07/01/15 21:06, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: >> Le mercredi, 7 janvier 2015, 12.17:43 Jonas Smedegaard a écrit : >>>> This is fixed in upstream's 9.14. I'll see with the release team if >>>> we can backport this into Jessie. >>> >>> Great. But what about its licensing? I guess upstream treat it as >>> AGPL, so we may risk disagreeing with them if we choose to ignore >>> that - e.g. by treating it as too small to be copyright-protected. >> >> Best is to ask I guess. Let's try to see what the upstream author of >> the patch says. Hereby CC'ing him. >> >> Chris: We (Debian) want to include your patch for the Ghostscript bug >> 695031 "don't assume we can read a font file", but we are wondering >> about its licensing situation. >> >> Debian is shipping ghostscript 9.06, licensed under GPL-3, but you >> included this patch in ghostscript 9.14, which is licensed under >> AGPL. >> >> We have three options: >> >> a) consider your patch as too small to be copyright-protected. This >> would allow us to include is in GPL'd ghostscript 9.06. It'd be >> nice to have your confirmation on this though. >> b) get your patch also GPL-licensed, allowing us to include it in >> GPL'd ghostscript 9.06. It'd be mandatory to have an explicit >> statement from you (as author of the patch) on that. >> c) None of the above, leaving the bug open for Debian Jessie, thereby >> leaving our users with a bug in our next stable release. Needless >> to say we'd prefer any of the two above solutions. >> >> Cheers, and thanks in advance, > > So, for clarity, that will be this commit: > > http://git.ghostscript.com/?p=ghostpdl.git;a=blobdiff;f=gs/Resource/Init/gs_fonts.ps;h=8ab6872e > > (or, for convenience: http://tinyurl.com/pvr4acp ) > > We'd have no problem with you patching an older, non-AGPL release with > that - we'd regard it as being covered by your "a" case above. It's > also a sufficiently obvious solution that any competent Postscript > programmer would almost certainly come up with the same solution, > which would make copyright enforcement decidedly questionable, too. > > So go ahead and use that patch. > > In the interests of the usual legal disclaimers, though, this only > applies to the particular patch linked above, so any other patches in > the future will need to be considered on a case-by-case basis.
Thanks, Chris, for taking the time with this. Your judgement makes good sense, and is obviously helpful for us. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: signature
