Re: license opinion sought
I am in NM cue. So this is just my practice :)
Short answer:
I think it is DSFG compliant if one can get source code of this
software. Governing law section in 9 may require closer review.
Action required:
Confirm with the upstream about their proffered methods for satisfying
requirement set by this phrase:
"The Improvements shall promptly be made available".
Details:
On Fri, Jul 05, 2002 at 05:27:10PM -0700, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
> I am itching to package PolyML, a relatively lightweight, standard
> conformant ML implementation with some unique features (such as a
> persistent store). But IANAL, so I can't make sense of its license.
> It's not just that I don't know if it's DFSG;
I will review it item-by-item below.
> I simply don't know _what_ it allows/prohibits.
> The license is here: http://www.polyml.org/Get.html
Interesting document :)
Notable thing are
1. mention of "right to grant sub-licences" and
2. lack of mention on "distribution".
I think Debian and its packager can be considered licencee. To help
understand, I included key parts of licence here with my comment.
| OPERATIVE PROVISIONS:
|
| 1. The Licensor grants to the Licensee a non-exclusive, royalty-free
| licence to use the Software, with the right to grant sub-licences,
| subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
So Debian can grant sub-licences. I took this as implied permission to
distribute this software since sub-licences are useless without
distributing this software.
| 2. The copyright and other intellectual property rights of whatever
| nature in the Software are and shall remain the property of the
| Licensor.
|
| 3. In this Agreement "Software" means all versions of the computer
| language translation program Poly/ML but not including any
| Improvements (as hereinafter defined by Clause 4) to such Software
| licensed to the Licensor pursuant to Clause 5.
|
| 4. The copyright and other intellectual property rights of whatever
| nature in any improvements, enhancements or modifications to the
| source code of the Software or which necessitate access to the source
| code of the Software in order to be compiled into a functioning binary
| form and which are made by the Licensee ("the Improvements") shall
| vest in and be and remain the property of the Licensee.
|
| 5. The Licensee grants to the Licensor in good faith a non-exclusive,
| royalty-free licence to use any Improvements with the right to grant
| sub-licences to any existing or future licensees of the Software.
Just like GPL. Somewhat contagious :)
| 6. The Licensor shall be bound to grant sub-licenses of the
| Improvements on being requested so to do by any existing or future
| Licensee of the Software. The Improvements shall promptly be made
| available by the Licensee to the Licensor and by the Licensor to any
| sub-licensee. Such Improvements shall be made available to a degree of
| detail sufficient for the purposes of the license granted under clause
| 5 or as required by the Licensor.
Just like GPL. Everyone shares Improvement. "promptly be made
available" is required here but no specific method is defined. Asking
question to the Licensor such as "Is the act of putting source code on
public file servers considered as 'be made available'?" may clarify
situation. Sending e-mail automatically may be a technical solution to
satisfy this but may not be welcomed :)
| 7. Any licence or sub-licence granted by either the Licensor or the
| Licensee of the Software and/or the Improvements shall contain
| provisions that reflect the provisions of this Agreement with any
| changes necessary to give the arrangements efficacy.
|
| 8. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE LICENSOR AND ANY CONTRIBUTING
| LICENSEES "AS IS" AND ANY WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT
| NOT LIMITED TO THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS
| FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
| LICENSOR OR ANY CONTRIBUTING LICENSEES BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT,
| INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES
| (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR
| SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION)
| HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT,
| STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) OR
| OTHERWISE ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF
| ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE, EXCLUDING ANY PERSONAL
| INJURY OR DEATH CAUSED BY THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE LICENSOR OR ANY
| CONTRIBUTING LICENSEES.
|
| 9. This Agreement is governed by and is to be construed in accordance
| with English law.
This is standard legalese phrase many contract carries. I do not know
what effects it causes.
| Last updated: 15 January 2002 by David Matthews.
Is this DSFG compliant? Let me check item-by-item
|The Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG)
|
| 1. Free Redistribution
| The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from
| selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate
| software distribution containing programs from several different
| sources. The license may not require a royalty or other fee for
| such sale.
This is satisfied.
| 2. Source Code
| The program must include source code, and must allow distribution
| in source code as well as compiled form.
Yes. (I assumed)
| 3. Derived Works
| The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must
| allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license
| of the original software.
Since sub-licences are allowed, this is satisfied.
| 4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code
Not applicable. This is satisfied.
| 5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
| 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
These are satisfied.
| 7. Distribution of License
| The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the
| program is redistributed without the need for execution of an
| additional license by those parties.
This is satisfied.
| 8. License Must Not Be Specific to Debian
This is satisfied.
| 9. License Must Not Contaminate Other Software
This is satisfied.
| 10. Example Licenses
| The "[12]GPL", "[13]BSD", and "[14]Artistic" licenses are examples
| of licenses that we consider "free".
This is just example.
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ Osamu Aoki <debian@aokiconsulting.com> @ Cupertino, CA USA +
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: