Re: Bug#509287: Please give opinion about "Bug#509287: afio: license is non-free"
Hi all,
Few comments below...
On Sun, 21 Dec 2008, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 01:00:16 +0100 Erik Schanze wrote:
>
> [...]
> > I got a Bug against package "afio" because of licence problems.
> > Please see http://bugs.debian.org/509287.
> >
> > There was already a similar Bug 9 years ago that was closed, after one
> > person from this list gave his OK.
> > (http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/1999/05/msg00162.html)
>
> I don't quite agree with the ease the issue was handled with back in
> 1999...
>
> >
> > But I think it's not that easy. It seems the clause is problematic.
> >
> > There is an ongoing discussion on a Redhat list
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=449037 and they excluded
> > the package already. There is an other blog on
> > http://www.kernelplanet.org/fedora/ that gave a summary of the current
> > situation.
>
> If the license for (a part of) the package is, as stated:
>
> * ------------------------------------------------------------------
> *
> * License notice 1, covering part of this software package.
> *
> * [Covers the original 1985 afio code]
> *
> * Copyright (c) 1985 Lachman Associates, Inc..
> *
> * This software was written by Mark Brukhartz at Lachman Associates,
> * Inc.. It may be distributed within the following restrictions:
> * (1) It may not be sold at a profit.
> * (2) This credit and notice must remain intact.
> * This software may be distributed with other software by a commercial
> * vendor, provided that it is included at no additional charge.
> *
> *
> * [Note: it is believed that condition 5 of the Perl "Artistic
> * License" implies the intent of restriction (1) above.]
> *
> * --------
>
> then I think there are some serious issues.
>
> First off: restriction (1) seems to fail DFSG#1, as it forbids selling
> the software package, even "as a component of an aggregate software
> distribution".
> The following exception does not help, IMHO, since it discriminates
> against people who are not "commercial vendors" (DFSG#5): whatever that
> may mean, I think at least some people will not qualify as "commercial
> vendors".
I think the exception does help.
The question is: can somebody who does not qualify as a commercial vendor
still sell at a profit? I think no, I believe the author of the text meant
commercial vendors to be a set larger than 'sellers at profit': and if so,
then the exception applies to all entities to whom (1) would apply.
As the .tar.gz file of afio which is the basic unit of distribution
ALREADY contains other software that is distributed with the license 1
code, i.e. the fnmatch code GPL code, anybody who is charging for the
distribution of the combined work can claim that the basis of the whole
charge is outside of the license 1 code, e.g. in the GPL code.
If you are not charging for distribution you are obviously not in
violation of (1).
>
> Moreover: where's the permission to modify the software package?
> The license seems to utterly fail to meet DFSG#3.
Hmm.. Well I believe it was originally posted to comp.sources or
something with a note that it is quite portable -- a clear implication by
the author that modification is intended. As far as I can see (2) implies
that you can modify it all you want as long as the credit and notice
remains intact.
Basically it comes down to this: in dealing with very old software, is the
current legal community behind the distributions willing to consider the
fact that license writing was not as advanced back then, and engage in a
good-faith effort to interpret the original text and wishes of the author,
by which they arguably expose themselves and the wider community to some
legal and reputation risks, or will the legal community insist on applying
modern standards of license writing to all license texts and declare
impure all the old software for which they cannot fix the license? The
latter course of action would leave me somewhat saddened of course because
I feel we need to honour the gifts of our predecessors even if these gifts
pre-date the era of the advanced free licenses we have today.
>
> I personally think that afio should be moved to the non-free archive,
> provided that it is deemed to be legally distributable (the attempt to
> claim that the whole package is under a different license could even be
> seen as a copyright violation, maybe).
Please read the SUMMARY INFORMATION again, not the bloggers. In no
location does it claim or attempt to claim that the package is under a
different license.
>
>
> What I wrote above is my own personal opinion, my usual disclaimers
> apply: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP.
Cheers, HAND,
Koen.
Reply to: