Re: Bug#497056: lsb-base: /lib/lsb/init-functions NON-DSFG Licence ?
Hi,
On Fri, 2008-08-29 at 18:30 +0300, root wrote:
> Package: lsb-base
> Version: 3.2-19
> Severity: serious
> Justification: Policy 2.1
>
>
> Please investigate if files included in lsb-base conform to DFSG. A lincense
> change to GPL would be better suited for Debian.
>
> Policy / 2.1. The Debian Free Software Guidelines:
>
> ...
> 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.
>
> Integrity of The Author's Source Code
> The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in
> modified form _only_ if the license allows the distribution of
> "patch files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying
> the program at build time. The license must explicitly permit
> distribution of software built from modified source code. The
> license may require derived works to carry a different name or
> version number from the original software. (This is a
> compromise. The Debian Project encourages all authors to not
> restrict any files, source or binary, from being modified.)
>
> File and Licence in question
> -----------------------------
>
> # /lib/lsb/init-functions for Debian -*- shell-script -*-
> #
> #Copyright (c) 2002-08 Chris Lawrence
> #All rights reserved.
> #
> #Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
> #modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
> #are met:
This is DFSG-free, and meets both requirements.
> #1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
> # notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
This is also DFSG-free, and meets both requirements.
> #2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
> # notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
> # documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
This is also DFSG-free, and meets both requirements.
> #3. Neither the name of the author nor the names of other contributors
> # may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software
> # without specific prior written permission.
This is also DFSG-free, and meets both requirements.
> #
> #THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE AUTHOR ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR
> #IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED
> #WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
> #ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE REGENTS OR CONTRIBUTORS 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) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE,
> #EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
This is also DFSG-free, and meets both requirements.
The DFSG does not mean GPL. Provided all requirements of the DFSG are
met, then the work is DFSG free. If you do not understand this, e.g.
clearly you don't if you propose moving to GPL, then please do not
report such bugs.
William
Reply to: