I've talked with the author of Vigra of the licencing problems
(http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/09/msg00515.html), and it seems
reading to change the licence.
Here is the mail he sent to me :
---------- Message transmis ----------
Subject: Re: [VIGRA] Licencing problem between Hugin and Vigra
Date: Vendredi 7 Octobre 2005 15:23
From: Ullrich Koethe <koethe@informatik.uni-hamburg.de>
To: Florent Bayle <florent.bayle@free.fr>
Hi Florent,
I like that idea that one cannot sell VIGRA as a source code library. As I
understand, this is the same in a GPL-covered work, and I would ather like
to keep it.
As I understand, there are the follwoing objections to the VIGRA license:
Definitions section:
"Freely Available" means that no fee is charged for the item.
It also means that recipients of the item may redistribute it
under the same conditions they received it.
This is considered too restrictive. The GPL (clause 1) says:
You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy.
I suggest the following rewording
"Freely Available" means that you make the source code available under
the same terms as in this license. You may charge a fee for the physical
act of transferring a copy.
With this modification, the following clause should become unproblematic:
a. place your modifications in the Public Domain or otherwise
make them Freely Available, for example by allowing the
Copyright Holder to include your modifications in the Standard
Version of the Library.
Some people suggested that this means that your modifications, if
published, must be in the public domain. But the clause specifically says
"or make them Freely Available" which is much less restrictive, as by the
(reworded) "Definitions" section.
The following clause also raised objections:
4. You may otherwise modify your copy of this Library in any way,
provided that you insert a prominent notice in each changed file
The "insert a prominent notice in each changed file" should actually go
into clause 4a only. Then it seems to me that it says quite the same as
the GPL, clause 2a:
2. You may modify your copy ... and distribute such modifications ..
provided
a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.
Would the suggested changes satisfy the Debian folks? Another option would
be to place VIGRA under either the artistic license (in its current
version) and the GPL, at the discretion of the user.
Regards
Ulli
--
________________________________________________________________
| Ullrich Koethe Universitaet Hamburg / University of Hamburg |
| FB Informatik / Dept. of Informatics |
| AB Kognitive Systeme / Cognitive Systems Group |
|
| Phone: +49 (0)40 42883-2573 Vogt-Koelln-Str. 30 |
| Fax: +49 (0)40 42883-2572 D - 22527 Hamburg |
| Email: u.koethe@computer.org Germany |
| koethe@informatik.uni-hamburg.de |
| WWW: http://kogs-www.informatik.uni-hamburg.de/~koethe/ |
|________________________________________________________________|
-------------------------------------------------------
What do you think about these changes ? Will it be possible to include Vigra
in main ?
Thanks.
Note : actual VIGRA licence is here :
http://kogs-www.informatik.uni-hamburg.de/~koethe/vigra/LICENSE
--
Florent
Attachment:
pgpcf9kMSXMnw.pgp
Description: PGP signature