Re: This license (JPython) acceptable ?
I think you shall get a far wider audience and a better
response if you post in debian-devel, rather than in -policy. There
are very many people who do not read -policy. This is not really a
policy issue anyway. Please move the discussion to -devel.
>>"Gregor" == "Gregor Hoffleit <Gregor Hoffleit" <email@example.com> writes:
Gregor> (2) Source issues
Gregor> In the upstream source, the Python grammar is included as
Gregor> input for JavaCC (Java Compiler Compiler). JavaCC compiles
Gregor> the grammar into .java source. Does this really make JPython
Gregor> go into contrib ? Or could I simply include the compiled
Gregor> .java files ?
As to the source issues, the Python grammar needs to be
included in tha package. If the JavaCC compiles them into an
intermediate form (whatever that form maybe), just distributing the
intermediate .java files is not good enough. What is the status of
the Python grammar?
Why would it make JPython go into contrib? Seems to me that
either the grammar is free, in which case it goes into main, or it is
not, in which case the package should go into non-free.
Gregor> (3) Runtime issues
Gregor> kaffe is not yet able to run JPython, since kaffe lacks
Gregor> e.g. java.math.BigInteger. Therefore, JPython currently only
Gregor> works with jdk1.1. Does this make JPython go into contrib ?
Gregor> Or is this simply a bug in kaffe, so that JPython can be in
Gregor> main ?
Also, if at the moment one needs a non-free program to have
JPython actually work, then it goes in contrib. Just because it may
work with a free program in the future is not good enough. When the
free program does gain the required cabability, then it may ber
brought out of contrib, assuming that no other obstacles remain.
Gregor> Following up on my recent inquiry about the JPython license, here is
Gregor> an update. Depending on the results of these issues, I will put the
Gregor> package into main, contrib or non-free.
Gregor> (1) License issues
Gregor> Judging from the repsonses, most of the license seems to be acceptable
Gregor> according to the terms of the DFSG.
Gregor> There's one clause (8.) which can be ignored by removing a third-party
Gregor> library from the packages (OROMatcher).
Gregor> The real problem seems to be 3.iii:
Gregor> 3. In the event Licensee, at its sole cost and expense, uses the
Gregor> Software to prepare a derivative work that is based on or
Gregor> incorporates the Software or any part thereof, and wants
Gregor> to make the derivative work available to the public for
Gregor> commercial or noncommercial purposes, or uses the software
Gregor> in this derivative form to provide a service to the
Gregor> public, then Licensee hereby agrees: (i) to indicate in
Gregor> any such work, in a prominently visible way, the specific
Gregor> modifications made to CNRI's Software; (ii) not to
Gregor> introduce deliberately any modifications where there is
Gregor> reason to believe they will be harmful to other users and
Gregor> their systems; and (iii) to notify CNRI of any release to
Gregor> the public of Licensee's derivative version, or any
Gregor> service offered to the public by Licensee based thereon.
Gregor> It is not obvious whether this is compatible with the DFSG.
Gregor> Therefore, I asked on the JPython list about the implications and
Gregor> intentions of this clause. I got responses from both Jim Hugunin and
Gregor> Guido van Rossum. Both told me that the intention of the license is
Gregor> clearly to make JPython Open Source compliant, and that they are aware
Gregor> of problems with 3.iii and are working to get rid of them.
Gregor> Then, I asked Eric Raymond on his position. He proposed dropping that
Gregor> notification requirement or at least including a clear statement on
Gregor> how this requirement can be fulfilled (e.g. an e-mail address for
Gregor> sending the notifications to).
Gregor> Judging from the discussions with Guido et al, I would think that we
Gregor> are completely safe if I add an statement to
Gregor> /usr/doc/jpython/copyright where I refer people that they can fulfill
Gregor> this requirement with sending a mail to firstname.lastname@example.org. Would this
Gregor> be acceptable ?
"Well, if you can't believe what you read in a comic book, what
*___can* you believe?!" Bullwinkle J. Moose [Jay Ward]
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E