FWD: Bug#121916: analog should be in non-free
It seems we have to question this license from time to time. I wish it
was somthing better understood like the GPL. Anyway, here is the current
complaint, with my comments at the end:
----- Forwarded message from "Dwayne C. Litzenberger" <dlitz@dlitz.net> -----
Package: analog
Version: 2:5.1-1
Severity: serious
Justification: Policy 2.1.2
The analog package is not DFSG-compliant. From
/usr/share/doc/analog/copyright:
2) The program may be copied and distributed by any person or
organisation in any way whatsoever, provided that any distribution is
accompanied by a copy of all the documentation pertaining to the
program. You may not charge for the program itself, only for
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
reasonable costs of distributing the program, and you must not do
anything to suggest to the person to whom it is distributed that
analog is anything other than free software. Furthermore, you may not
^^^^^^^^^^^
charge for distributing a modified version of the program unless the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
source code for the modified version, or a list of differences between
the modified version and the original version, is publicly and freely
available in machine readable form.
This clearly violates section 2.1.2 of Debian policy:
2.1.2 The main section
Every package in main and non-US/main must comply with the DFSG
(Debian Free Software Guidelines).
And, quoting the DFSG (Section 2.1.1):
The Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG) form our definition of
`free software'. These are:
Free Redistribution
The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate
^^^^^^^
software distribution containing programs from several different
sources. The license may not require a royalty or other fee for such
sale.
--
Dwayne C. Litzenberger <dlitz@dlitz.net>
----- End forwarded message -----
First of all, Dwayne's choice of what to emphasize is not very useful,
none of the text can be fully understood if read in isolation.
I don't think that the requirement "you may not charge for distributing
a modified version of the program unless the source code [...] is publicly
and freely available" violates the DFSG. It's not much different from
the GPL's requirements that the source code to modified versions of
GPL'd software be made available, and is in fact much less onerous in
its requirements than is, eg, section 3b. of the GPL. I think this list has
seen discussions about whether that violates the DFSG, and I hope we can
avoid rehashing that.
Moving on to the other objection, does "you may not charge for the
program itself, only for reasonable costs of distributing the program"
violate the DFSG? The DFSG requires that a program's license not prevent
sale of an aggregate of software that includes that program. It doesn't
require that the program be salable alone, just in combination with
other software.
Arguably, if I sell a Debian cd for $20,000[1] and it includes analog,
but also all the other stuff that is normally on a Debian CD, I could
itemize the billing something like:
analog, distribution costs $1
other software $19,999
And get away with it. :-) It's woth noting that there is a lot of
software in debian licensed under the Artistic license, which has this
to say about sale costs, and nobody has seriously objected to this so far:
"Reasonable copying fee" is whatever you can justify on the
basis of media cost, duplication charges, time of people involved,
and so on. (You will not be required to justify it to the
Copyright Holder, but only to the computing community at large
as a market that must bear the fee.)
...
5. You may charge a reasonable copying fee for any distribution of this
Package. You may charge any fee you choose for support of this
Package. You may not charge a fee for this Package itself. However,
you may distribute this Package in aggregate with other (possibly
commercial) programs as part of a larger (possibly commercial) software
distribution provided that you do not advertise this Package as a
product of your own.
Finally, even if I'm dead wrong on the above, the title of this email is
wrong. Stephen has modified his license in the past to address concerns,
expresses a great deal of willing flexablity in the license itself ("If
you want to do something that is against this licence, but within the
spirit of free software, then let's talk about it."), and is, I think, a
Debian user. I'm suspect comething can be worked out to keep analog in
Debian if that turns out to be necessary.
Also, Stephen, have you even thought about dual-licensing analog under some
other, probably generally more restrictive, license like the GPL? That might
be useful, since it would firmly put to rest any complaints about the free
softwareness of analog's license, while (probably) not giving away any more
rights than you do now, and without changing at all the more interesting
provisions of your current license (like the "1000 lines" clauses).
--
see shy jo
[1] have such CD's for sale, if anyone is interested.
Reply to: