Hi all, I was going to ITP helpdeco and I noticed the licence: http://www.geocities.com/mwinterhoff/helpdeco.htm > HELPDECO is freeware. Use at your own risk. No part of the program may > be used commercially. No fees may be charged on distributing the > program (shareware distributors keep off). Obviously, this is non-free, and seems to prevent debian from even distributing it, since debian CDs sometimes cost money. This doesn't seem to affect the NetBSD project though: ftp://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD/packages/pkgsrc/textproc/helpdeco/README.html Anyway, I pinged upstream and he seemed to be willing to make it more free. I quote relevant pieces of the conversation we had: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > From: Paul Wise <pabs@zip.to> > Subject: helpdeco licence question > Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2005 23:34:04 +0800 > > I was thinking of packaging helpdeco for Debian GNU/Linux and I saw the > licence: > > > HELPDECO is freeware. Use at your own risk. No part of the program may > > be used commercially. No fees may be charged on distributing the > > program (shareware distributors keep off). > > Besides being a little vague, it seems to prevent Debian from > distributing it, because fees are often charged for Debian CDs. Also, it > doesn't allow for modifications such as fixing bugs etc in the debian > version. Is this your intention, or would you (and any other copyright > holders) be willing to relicence it under a more liberal or even a free > software licence? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > From: Manfred Winterhoff <mawin@gmx.net> > Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 00:28:38 +0200 (06:28 WST) > > The MS-DOS compilation of HelpDeco may not be included in software that > packages are sold, like Linux distributions. The source of HelpDeco may be > modified as neccessary to create a Linux Application, and this port may be > distributed in any way the author of that port allows, if the author got > a permission to use the sourtce of HelpDeco for this port from me. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > From: Paul Wise <pabs@zip.to> > Date: Sat, 02 Apr 2005 10:59:31 +0800 > > I see, thanks for the clarification. Would you be willing to give me > permission to create such a port for debian, or even better, put a > blanket licence allowing the creation of such ports from the source > code? In any case, it would be nice to see this information on the web > page. > > If you give me permission (rather than a blanket licence), what would > happen to the port in the event that I am unable to maintain it in > debian (death, lack of time/interest etc)? Would debian (and the new > maintainer) still be able modify the source and distribute source and > compiled binaries, or would the new maintainer need to contact you and > negotiate another such licence? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > From: Manfred Winterhoff <mawin@gmx.net> > Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2005 20:47:46 +0200 > > Oh, so you developed CHMDeco. So you will know what demand is on the > Linux side to handle Windows Help files. I can not believe that the > NetBSD port of HelpDeco does have any audience, but if you want to port > HelpDeco to Linux, just do it, add your copyright to mine, and release > your port with source under GPL, so that Debian and all other Linux > distributers can include it if they want. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > From: Paul Wise <pabs@zip.to> > Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 10:48:36 +0800 > > Excellent. I will need to run this past the debian-legal mailing list > just to be sure, do you mind if I quote your emails? Further > statements or actions may be required on your part. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > From: Manfred Winterhoff <mawin@gmx.net> > Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 18:22:11 +0200 (Tue, 00:22 WST) > > No problem, it's ok. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ So, my question is, is it enough to quote the above in debian/copyright for this to go into main, or will upstream need to release a new version with the licencing clarified, or where to from here? (I'm not subscribed, please CC me) -- bye, pabs
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part