[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: PalmOS SDK license

Scripsit Chris Butler <chrisb@debian.org>

> Package: prc-tools
> Severity: grave
> Version: 0.5.0r-3.1

EVERYBODY BEWARE! The original message was posted to
submit@bugs.debian.org with cc to debian-legal. People
who just use "wide reply" to follow up to debian-legal
postings run a grave risk of inadvertently submitting
a separate bug!

The *right* way to do this would be to used the X-Debbugs-CC
header to have the bug tracking system send debian-legal
a copy of the message with the right bug number etc. See
the user manual for the bug tracking system.

> I've just been looking at the license for the PalmOS SDK, and I have a 
> feeling that we may not be able to distribute the SDK with the prc-tools
> package.

We surely cannot outside nonfree, and even in nonfree is doubtful
as the license seems to disallow independent distribution on FTP

> (ii) no license is granted to you in the human 
> readable code of the Software (source code);

Fails DFSG #2.

> Software and this License Agreement to another party if the
> other party agrees in writing to accept the terms and
> conditions of this License Agreement.

Fails DFSG #1, #7.

> Modification, reverse engineering, reverse compiling, or disassembly of the 
> Software is expressly prohibited.

Fails DFSG #3.

> TRADE SECRETS; TITLE:  You acknowledge and agree that the structure, 
> sequence and organization of the Software are the valuable trade secrets of 
> 3Com and its suppliers.  You agree to hold such trade secrets in
> confidence.

Ought to fail DFSG on some count, perhaps #1 (under any sensible
interpretaion redistribution would entail breach of said confidence)?

Henning Makholm                               "... popping pussies into pies
                                                      Wouldn't do in my shop
                            just the thought of it's enough to make you sick
                           and I'm telling you them pussy cats is quick ..."

Reply to: