[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Verifying licence for packaging



Jeff Epler <jepler@unpythonic.net> writes:

> On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 01:48:47AM +0300, Michael Gvirtzman wrote:
> > 1. Could you please review the below *Licence* of the *Golden Rules
> > Organizer <http://www.golden-rules.org/>* *freeware* for suiting
> > Debian rules:

I presume you're referring to the Debian Free Software Guidelines, part
of the Social Contract the Debian project has with its users. They're
fairly brief, you might like to review them as well:
<URL:http://www.debian.org/social_contract.html#guidelines>

> ========================================================================
>      Golden Rules Organizer v1.4 - End User License Agreement

In what way is this an agreement? How does it apply to recipients who do
not agree?

> Golden Rules Organizer v1.4 may be used free of charge.

What does “used” mean in this instance? It's quite a loose term for a
legal instrument. Does it mean “execute”, “derive new works from”,
“link against”, some combination of these, or something else?

> Golden Rules Organizer v1.4 IS DISTRIBUTED "AS IS". NO WARRANTY OF ANY
> KIND IS EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED. YOU USE AT YOUR OWN RISK. COPYRIGHT OWNER 
> WILL NOT BE LIABLE FOR DATA LOSS, DAMAGES, LOSS OF PROFITS OR ANY OTHER 
> KIND OF LOSS WHILE USING OR MISUSING THIS SOFTWARE.

No problems with a warranty disclaimer of this kind.

> You may not use, copy, emulate, clone, rent, lease, sell, modify, 
> decompile, disassemble, otherwise reverse engineer, or transfer the 
> licensed program, or any subset of the licensed program, except as 
> provided for in this agreement. Any such unauthorized use shall result in
> immediate and automatic termination of this license and may result in 
> criminal and/or civil prosecution. 

Again, this switches between “agreement” and “license” as though
they're the same thing. You might be better making it a unilateral grant
of license, rather than operating under the assumption of agreement from
the recipient.

> Written permission needs to be obtained to copy the licensed program
> to a different server or media for redistribution. In all cases, this 
> license must remain intact.

This restriction fails the “desert island” and “dissident” tests
<URL:http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html#testing> and thus
DFSG§1; it restricts redistribution to those who enter into written
agreement with a party they may not be able or willing to contact.

> Installing and using Golden Rules Organizer v1.4 signifies acceptance
> of these terms and conditions of the license.

So those who do not “install and use” the work do not have any license
under these terms. Why not just grant the license to any recipient
without requiring agreement?

> Fails most of the DFSG, as far as I can tell.

Agreed. The copyright holder would be well advised to consider whether
their goals are in line with a free operating system like Debian.

-- 
 \        “Members of the general public commonly find copyright rules |
  `\        implausible, and simply disbelieve them.” —Jessica Litman, |
_o__)                                              _Digital Copyright_ |
Ben Finney


Reply to: