Re: xforms exception for xmysqladmin needed?
Martin Bialasinski wrote:
> ** "Peter" == Peter S Galbraith <GalbraithP@dfo-mpo.gc.ca> wrote:
> Peter> That's not what I meant. I meant that we ship a binary-only
> Peter> package that does not contain sources.
> A Debian package consists of the binary- and the source
> package. Together, they form the version of a program we
> distribute. So we do distribute xmysqladmin with full sources, just as
> the license demands.
Just to be clear, the license says:
I reserve the copyright to xMySQLadmin. However, you are permitted
to use and distribute xMySQLadmin, provided that you
(a) distribute it with the full sources, and
(b) that you leave this documentation and
copyright notice intact.
It doesn't say you may distribute full sources _separately_.
I agree that the GPL has similar wording, althought it uses the
word `Accompany with ... source code', which can be argued to
mean a separate package is allowed as long as it's available.
The GPL also has a `written orfer' clause which CD vendors can use
if they so desire.
> Peter> Now that I think of it some more, the xmysqladmin license says
> Peter> that we must distribute it _with_ source (meaning that sources
> Peter> must accompany the binary?) so it sounds like you might need a
> Peter> /usr/doc/xmysqladmin/src directory tree to comply.
> To this, I can not agree. We distribute xmysqladmin with the
> sources. It doesn't say a user has to install them.
> Peter> Do you not agree that we are breaking the license with a
> Peter> binary-only package? Perhaps my interpretation is wrong?
> No, I do not agree. We do not distribute it without the sources.
Perhaps Christoph Martin can tell us which wording prompted him
to package tetex-src? Was it more specific?
> I officialy seek a consensus and review from debian-legal about
> this. If I don't get a official decision on this, or debian-legal
> shows no interest in this (mails from Peter don't count in this)
> seven days, I will close with the report as a non-bug.
> Peter, please don't take this personally, I just don't agree on this
> legal interpretation, and I want an authorative decision, as this is a
> release critical bug.
I don't take this personally. Neither should you. It's a
release critical bug, but I have offered a solution (even two, as
you're going to need to contact the author about xmysql's license
anyway, unless that's a different upstream author). There's no
need to brush this aside too quickly. There is no immediate
threat to remove the package from the archive. This is not the
first package to have an ambiguously phrased license that needs
Peter Galbraith, research scientist <GalbraithP@dfo-mpo.gc.ca>
Maurice Lamontagne Institute, Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada
P.O. Box 1000, Mont-Joli Qc, G5H 3Z4 Canada. 418-775-0852 FAX: 775-0546
6623'rd GNU/Linux user at the Counter - http://counter.li.org/