Re: Swiss Ephemeris Public License
Summary: The licence appears DFSG-free, although it could be more tightly
written to make that a bit clearer. The preamble, however, is either really
badly worded, or shows that the authors interpret the licence to be
non-free.
If we go just based on the licence text, then I think you're OK. But -legal
has a history of taking into account copyright holders' stated
interpretations (which is fair enough, because most of us aren't Real
Lawyers - "I'm not a lawyer, I just play one on debian-legal" - and we don't
want to have to go to court to show our interpretation trumps the authors,
and also we're caring and sharing, and if an author wants his software to be
non-free, we will abide by his wishes). Bugger that was a long
parenthetical...
At any rate, the preamble takes the software into deep uncharted territory,
so you'll probably want to get it clarified with upstream if nothing else.
On Fri, Oct 10, 2003 at 03:07:04PM -0400, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> If you do not meet the requirements in the SEPL, for example if
> - you develop and distribute software which is sold for a fee higher than a
> reasonable copy charge
They are implying that you are selling the binaries for profit. If that's
what they're referring to, it's "no commercial exploitation" and fails.
Furthermore, it's extending to anything you write, not just software under
this licence.
Reworded as "you develop software based on code under this Licence for which
you sell the corresponding source code for a fee higher than a reasonable
copying charge", it would be much cleaner. Far more legalese, though, which
I'm sure someone else can provide a better wording for.
> - or/and you develop and distribute software which is not published under an
> Open Source or equivalent license
I am contracted to write software for another client which is licenced All
Rights Reserved. Does that mean that I need an SE Pro licence to distribute
my (otherwise quite free) mods to SE? This one seems like a major
slip-of-the-tongue, but maybe they do mean that. Without clarification, we
have to read conservatively (ie err on the side of non-freeness, just to
cover our behinds).
"and/or you develop and distribute software under a licence which is not
published under an Open Source or equivalent licence, where such software is
derived, in whole or in part, from software distributed under this licence
agreement"
Long, wordy, and quite complex, but again, ensures that we know we're only
talking about software covered by this licence agreement.
> 1. You are granted the rights set forth in this license provided you agree
> to any and all conditions in this license. Whole or partial
> distribution of the SE in any form signifies acceptance of this
> license.
I'd put something GPL-like in here stating that "since you have signed
nothing, we can't force you, but if you don't agree then you can't
distribute it, so either you agree or you're in breach of copyright. Nyah
nyah nah-nah nyah!" "signifying" acceptance reeks of click-throughs.
> 2. You may copy and distribute the SE provided that the entire package is
> distributed, including this License.
Oops. "Entire". Does that mean the entire pre-modification version, or
entire *after* I've modified it? What if my modifications mean that there
isn't much of it left?
I think I know what they're trying to say - the source you give must
correspond to the binary you give, but that sure isn't what they're saying.
> 3. You may make modifications to the SE files and distribute your
> modifications in a form distinct from the SE. The following
> restrictions apply to modifications:
>
> a. Modifications must not alter or remove any copyright notices in the SE.
Quite reasonable.
> b. If modifications to the SE are released under this
> license, a non-exclusive right is granted to the holder of the
> copyright of the unmodified SE to distribute your
> modification in future versions of the SE provided such
> versions remain available under these terms in addition to any
> other license.
A convoluted way of saying "if you give it out, we can take it and put it
into our version". Makes me a little suspicious - they are, of course, free
to take any publically released modifications back into their version,
maintaining appropriate copyright notices. Is this clause simply codifying
that fact, or are they trying to do silly-bugger things with it?
> 4. You may distribute machine-executable forms of the SE or
> machine-executable forms of modified versions of the SE, provided that
>
> you meet these restrictions:
>
> a. You accompany the SE with this license.
Tick.
> b. You must ensure that all recipients of the machine-executable
> forms are also able to receive the complete machine-readable source
> code to the distributed SE, including all modifications, without any
> charge beyond the costs of data transfer.
Tick.
> c. You ensure that all modifications included in the
> machine-executable forms are available under the terms of this
> license.
Tick.
> 5. You may use the original or modified versions of the Swiss Ephemeris
> Software to compile, link and run application programs legally
> developed by you or third parties.
A usage provision. Nice that it's in there, but doesn't really come into it
(after all, Copyright tends to give this anyway).
> 6. You may develop application programs, reusable components and other
> software items that link with the original or modified versions of the
> Swiss Ephemeris Software. These items, when distributed in
> machine-executable form, have the following restrictions:
>
> a. You must ensure that all recipients of machine-executable forms of
> these items are also able to receive and use the complete
> machine-readable source code to the items without any charge beyond
> the costs of data transfer.
Quite reasonable.
> b. You must explicitly license all recipients of your items to use
> and re-distribute original and modified versions of the items in both
> machine-executable and source code forms under terms identical to
> those under which they received the items.
I'd prefer a mor eexplicit definition of "items" in these sections - this
last part tripped me up at first with "your items", thinking that this was
how they were getting at the second point in the preamble. After re-reading
it, I don't think that's the case, but it could stand to be clarified (by
putting a better definition of 'item' at the beginning or in the first part
of section 6).
> 7. The trademarks 'Swiss Ephemeris' and 'Swiss Ephemeris inside' and the
> associated icons may be used for promoting software, products or
> services which use or contain the Swiss Ephemeris. The names of the
> authors of the Swiss Ephemeris Software and of the Copyright Holder may
> not be used to endorse or promote products or services derived from or
> linking to the Swiss Ephemeris Software without specific prior written
> permission.
I don't have any problem with that.
> This license file and the copyright notices in the source files are the
> only places where the author's names may legally appear without specific
> prior written permission.
Yep, OK.
> This license file and the copyright notices in the source files are the
> onlyplaces where the author's names may legally appear without specific
> prior written permission.
Is there an echo in here?
> Limitations of Liability
>
> In no event shall the authors of the Swiss Ephemeris Software or their
> employers be liable for any lost revenue or profits or other direct,
> indirect, special, incidental or consequential damages, even if they have
> been advised of the possibility of such damages.
>
> No Warranty
>
> The Swiss Ephemeris Software is provided AS IS with NO WARRANTY OF ANY
> KIND, INCLUDING THE WARRANTY OF DESIGN, MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A
> PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
And the usual "please don't sue us if this software causes your computer to
eat your dog".
- Matt
Reply to: