Hi, On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 04:52:23PM -0800, Walter Landry wrote: > Osamu Aoki <osamu@debian.org> wrote: > > Although /usr/share/doc/tailor/copyright states GPL for tailor package, > > this is not GPL for sure. --> problem. > > This is a problem, though not all that serious. The copyright info > must be correct. Yep. > > This license only gives permission when fee is not charged. That seems > > to be DSFG1 violation. Also mixing code of GPL and this seems to be > > incompatible. > > This is a fairly standard license. The usual way of interpreting it > is that you need not pay any fees in order to copy, modify, or > distribute. Hmmm... I disagree. Do you have any reference to substantiate this? Making unsubstantiated judgment on this list is not a good idea. Please reread the license of this file:(Emphasis, me) > # Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and > # its associated documentation for any purpose and without fee is > ^^^^^^^^^^^ > # hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice appears in > # all copies, and that both that copyright notice and this permission > # notice appear in supporting documentation, and that the name of the > # author not be used in advertising or publicity pertaining to > # distribution of the software without specific, written prior > # permission. This means there is no explicit permission if fee is charged. Permission is granted for "without fee" only. So this software is without license and undistributable for my understanding for people who charge fees. I think lha in non-free is a good reference for my judgement. Can you point me to a package in main with this kind of license only? > Not that you may not sell copies. Well, what about CD distributor who trust us making judgment to be in main. There are people charging fees to distribute packages in main. > So it is GPL compatible. The software combining code with restriction (non-fee) and GPL is, I think, incompatible. That is my understanding. Is this some new debian-legal standard.??? Please do not make comment which is misleading to others. > > I looked further and found practically the same code is licensed under > > # Licensed to PSF under a Contributor Agreement. > > # See http://www.python.org/2.4/license for licensing details. > > for python2.4. (subprocess.py) So no real issue should exist. Thus > > marked this as "important" instead of "serious". I think this is practically dual licensed by reading both source. But including code with above mentioned strange sentence only causes unneeded concern thus it is best fixed clean. > If the version in Debian depends on python 2.4, then this is fine. > Upstream may balk at requiring 2.4 though. Why you make such an unsubstantiated FUD. > I think it is best just to > update the copyright file. No. Some parts of upstream source requires to use python 2.4 anyway and it is forced to do so already for Debian. Anyway, there is no REAL LIFE issue. There is license outside of package which is GPL compatible. As long as that is mentioned somewhere, we have no issue. I have already send message to upstream that using version in python 2.4 eliminate all issues from the root cause. Osamu
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature