On Sat, 7 Apr 2012 17:05:27 +0200 Mathieu Malaterre wrote: > Hi all, Hi Mathieu, thanks for taking this issue seriously. > > I am working on the package for "Java Components for Mathematics" > (#667923). Some files are distributed with a clear public domain type > license: > > This source code file, and compiled classes derived from it, can > be used and distributed without restriction, including for commercial > use. (Attribution is not required but is appreciated.) I don't think that the term "public domain" has anything to do with the case you are presenting. What you have seems to be a bunch of copyrighted files distributed under the license terms you quoted above. These license terms seem to be fairly short and simple, but they fail to give explicit permission to modify: I would say that these files do not comply with DFSG#3. I would suggest you to contact the upstream copyright holder(s) and persuade them to re-license those files under well-known and widely used Free Software terms: for instance under the Expat/MIT [1]. [1] http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt > > However some other files are distributed with a much nastier license: > > ... > 1) This source code file, in unmodified form, and compiled classes > derived from it can be used and distributed without restriction, > including for commercial use. (Attribution is not required > but is appreciated.) > . > 2) Modified versions of this file can be made and distributed > provided: the modified versions are put into a Java package > different from the original package, edu.hws; modified > versions are distributed under the same terms as the original; > and the modifications are documented in comments. (Modification > here does not include simply making subclasses that belong to > a package other than edu.hws, which can be done without any > restriction.) > ... > > Clearly §2 is meant to distinguish derived work from original work. > However in our case, this means this package will have to have its > name change whenever we need to patch the source code (eg. fix a > compilation error). It does not seem to me that the only effect of clause 2 is to require a name change for modified versions. Such a name change requirement would be acceptable (as a compromise) under DFSG#4. My impression is that clause 2 introduces odd restrictions on how modified versions are packaged and insists that modifications be documented in comments (which, depending on how it is interpreted, may be a very strong restriction). IMHO, clause 2 may be include non-free restrictions, failing to fully meet DFSG#3. I would suggest you to persuade the upstream copyright holder(s) to re-license those files under well-known and widely used Free Software terms: for instance under the already mentioned Expat/MIT [1] or, maybe, under the zlib license [2], if upstream are concerned about misrepresentation of modified versions. [2] http://www.gzip.org/zlib/zlib_license.html I hope this helps. Bye. -- 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:
pgpSrmXXwoR1e.pgp
Description: PGP signature