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

Re: Possible compatibility issue custom license versus GPL(2) in cacti



On Sat, 12 May 2012 11:19:51 +0200 Paul Gevers wrote:

> Hi,

Hello!

> 
> While working on the package cacti, I came across some files included in
> that project where I am unsure of the distributability or compatibility
> of the code, since the cacti project itself is under the GPL2 license.

Thanks a lot for taking this issue seriously.

> 
> The files in question are in the include/treeview folder which can be
> viewed on-line at [1], i.e. ftiens4.js and ftiens4_export.js. As the
> license for these files is not included in the project, but a link is
> provided in the headers for these files, I took a look at the web-site
> of the treeview project [2], where a link can be found to what I believe
> are the two possible licenses for this source. I have copied the
> Distributor's license below this e-mail.

If the license you quoted is really the one that applies to those two
files, then I think there are some issues to be fixed.

First of all, that license is GPL-incompatible.
It also fails to meet the DFSG and hence those two files are non-free.
That license has so many GPL-incompatible and/or non-free restrictions,
that I won't even go into a detailed analysis...
I expect that other debian-legal regulars agree with this conclusion.

[...]
> Could you please help me identifying if/what actions need to be taken?
> If this license is incompatible with GPL2 I expect that I should at
> least contact upstream about this license violation.

I think you should get in touch with upstream and explain them that
including those two files in their project makes cacti non-free.

Possible solutions I can think of:

 (A) if cacti may work without the non-free files (possibly with
reduced functionality), those files should be dropped entirely

 (B) if cacti cannot work without those files, appropriate DFSG-free
and GPL-compatible replacements should be found (or clean-room
developed)

 (C) Gubusoft should be contacted and persuaded to re-license those
files under GPLv2-compatible terms

At least, this is what I think should be tried.
I hope this helps.



[...]
> [1]
> http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=pkg-cacti/cacti.git;a=tree;f=include/treeview
> [2] http://www.treeview.net/
> [3] http://www.treeview.net/tv/license.asp

-- 
 http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt
 New GnuPG key, see the transition document!
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82  3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE

Attachment: pgp3PcplA0kgI.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: