Re: Linuxsampler license
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 05:54:35PM +0300, Harri J?rvi wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Linuxsampler is packaged in debian unstable.
>
> It would seem to me that Linuxsampler currently is not compatible with
> DFSG.
Agree.
> Also it seems to me that Linuxsampler's authors wouldn't be allowed to
> make the kind of a restriction to the GPL as they do.
The copyright holder can do whatever they want. However, its
sometimes impossible to use the software in a way consistent with all
of their license terms .. see, for example, recent threads on the PHP
license, which is used by some software written in php, but not php
itself. The php license implies that redistribution of the software
includes PHP; but, it does not (well, it could, but it should not have
to). So, Debian is taking the stance of "we will not distribute this
software, because the license is unclear or inconsistent, or just
badly implemented" (depending on your interpretation).
> The problem is that the README in linuxsampler says the following thing:
>
> "This software is distributed under the GNU General Public License (see
> COPYING file), and may not be used in commercial applications without
> asking the authors for permission."
The part after the comma makes it DFSG nonfree, because it is
inconsistent with [0]:
| 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
|
| The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in
| a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the
| program from being used in a business
> The debian copyright-file only says:
>
> "This software is distributed under the GNU General Public License (see
> COPYING file), and may not be used in commercial applications without
> asking the authors for permission."
Thats a Debian packaging bug.
> In summary, I think there is a conflict between the copyright statement
> in the debian package and the copyright statement in the upstream
> linuxsampler readme (copyright statement). Debian package maintainer
> shouldn't have removed the part of the copyright/license statement that
> made the additional restrictions.
Agree (but, it was probably a mistake; I think the GPL bit in
./debian/copyright was probably pasted there by dh_make).
> Also there seems to be a conflict between the GPL and the Linuxsampler's
> way to add restrictions. I don't think you are allowed to use GPL and
> make additional restrictions to it.
The copyright holder is allowed to do whatever they want. (However,
they are not allowed to modify the GPL; it disallows that). This
license, as ammeded, is inconsistent, though.
> I don't think the upstream version would be DFSG if the restrictions
> would apply.
Agree.
I'm filing a grave bug now, hopefully with Cc: -legal the right way,
this time.
Either upstream needs to be contacted to rectify the situation, or the
package needs to be removed. At present, the software can be
unknowingly used by a Debian user in violation of the license terms,
and that's a problem.
Justin
References
[0] http://www.us.debian.org/social_contract
Reply to: