Re: DFSG-compatibility of CSIRO license
Rafael Laboissiere <rafael@debian.org> writes:
> Here is the README file:
Thank you.
> Copyright 2000-2002 CSIRO Marine Research
Full copyright statement, including years and legal entity. Good.
> There is no warranty whatsoever. Use at your own risk.
Normal warranty disclaimer. No effect on DFSG status. Good.
> These code may be freely redistributed under the condition that the
> copyright notices are not removed. You may distribute modified
> versions of this code UNDER THE CONDITION THAT THIS CODE AND ANY
> MODIFICATIONS MADE TO IT IN THE SAME FILE REMAIN UNDER COPYRIGHT OF
> CSIRO, BOTH SOURCE AND OBJECT CODE ARE MADE FREELY AVAILABLE WITHOUT
> CHARGE, AND CLEAR NOTICE IS GIVEN OF THE MODIFICATIONS.
This paragraph appears to be the full grant of license and terms.
This, the copyright statement, and the warranty disclaimer, are the
parts that would need to be included in full in the ‘debian/copyright’
file.
Grants freedom to modify and redistribute, which is necessary for the
work to be DFSG-free. Good.
It's rather odd that, instead of requiring that the copyright *notice*
be preserved, that the condition is for the “CODE AND ANY
MODIFICATIONS MADE TO IT IN THE SAME FILE REMAIN UNDER COPYRIGHT OF
CSIRO”. I'm not sure whether that's non-free; it seems to be a
mandatory transfer of copyright to CSIRO.
Forbids the redistributor from charging for source or object code.
Non-free. BAD.
Requires the modifier to give “CLEAR NOTICE … OF THE MODIFICATIONS”.
We accept this as free in many other licenses and I see no reason to
complain in this case. Good.
Uses SHOUTY CAPITALS making the license terms harder to read, not
clearer. Bad, but no effect on DFSG status.
> Acknowledgments:
> This library uses `Triangle' by Jonathan Richard Shewchuk for
> Delaunay triangulation -- thanks, Richard, well done!
No indication of what copyright or license accrues to this
contribution. Does the code that is referenced here contain any more
specific copyright or license information?
My conclusion:
Non-free because it forbids redistribution for a fee. Also
questionable because of the apparent mandatory copyright transfer.
You might want to discuss with upstream whether they can re-license
the work under the terms of a well-known free software license; I
would recommend the GNU GPL with “version 2 or later”, or Expat.
--
\ “Self-respect: The secure feeling that no one, as yet, is |
`\ suspicious.” —Henry L. Mencken |
_o__) |
Ben Finney
Reply to: