Re: Compliance with DFSG
Anirudha Bose <ani07nov@gmail.com> writes:
> Due to my lack of knowledge in this, I would like to know if Cling is
> fully compliant with the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG) so
> that I can proceed ahead with packaging it for the Debian archive.
Thank you for working to improve Debian, and for treating seriously the
freedom of its users.
Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> writes:
> For the record, here is the license text:
>
> ==============================================================================
> Cling Release License
> ==============================================================================
> Copyright (c) 2007-2014 by the Authors.
> All rights reserved.
I'm not sure if “(c)” or “the Authors” would help anyone. Copyright law
only recognises “©” or “copr.” for “copyright”; and “the Authors” is not
a useful descriptor for a copyright holder.
The “all rights reserved” text is immediately contradicted by rights
which are explicitly *not* reserved, so that is legal nonsense.
But those would appear not to harm the recipient's freedoms in the work
substantially.
> Developed by:
>
> The ROOT Team; CERN and Fermilab
> http://cern.ch/cling
>
> You may license this software under one of the following licenses, marked
> "UI/NCSAOSL" and "LGPL".
So this is a dual grant of license, and the recipient (presuming that's
what a judge would interpret by “you”) can choose either one. Good.
> ==============================================================================
> UI/NCSAOSL
> ==============================================================================
> University of Illinois/NCSA
> Open Source License
> […]
That license is an unremarkable 3-clause BSD-style license, which allows
all the DFSG freedoms. Good.
> ==============================================================================
> LGPL
> ==============================================================================
> GNU LESSER GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
> Version 2.1, February 1999
>
> <insert copy of the LGPL 2.1>
That text is not *quite* a copy of the GNU LGPL. It changes a couple of
words, it changes some formatting, and it omits the entire section after
the terms and conditions.
Technically, the copyright holder has no license to redistribute a
modified text and still call it the “GNU LESSER GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE”;
as it says, “Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim
copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.”
The changes are also obnoxious for the reader, since it means we can't
simply know from an automated comparison whether this is actually the
LGPL 2.1.
But the changes, on inspection, turn out to have no normative effect;
the text grants all the same freedoms as the GNU LGPL 2.1. Good.
I would recommend the copyright holder should:
* Drop the “all rights reserved” sentence. It is false, confusing, and
unnecessary.
* Correct the copyright notice. It should have the copyright symbol “©”,
and should explicitly name one or more valid copyright holders.
* Clarify who is “you” in the grant of license.
* Correct the LGPL text to match the GNU LGPL 2.1 exactly, as the
license on that text requires.
As it stands, despite these ambiguities and errors which should be
corrected: I think any recipient of this work has full exercise of the
DFSG freedoms under either of the licenses dual-granted.
--
\ “Science doesn't work by vote and it doesn't work by |
`\ authority.” —Richard Dawkins, _Big Mistake_ (The Guardian, |
_o__) 2006-12-27) |
Ben Finney
Reply to: