On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 09:36:08 +0100 Rebecca N. Palmer wrote: > The beignet package is mostly under LGPL2.1, but since version 1.0.0, > has included 2 files based on gpuocelot ( > https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-opencl/beignet.git/tree/backend/src/ir/structural_analysis.cpp > ), under BSD-3 plus this additional clause: > > You agree that the Software will not be shipped, transferred, exported, > or re-exported directly into any country prohibited by the United States > Export Administration Act and the regulations thereunder nor will be > used for any purpose prohibited by the Act. I cannot find this documented in https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/b/beignet/copyright-1.0.2-2 An outdated debian/copyright file is a bug in itself... [...] > Is this allowed in Debian? (No according to > https://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq 12p.) As the FAQ states, this fails to meet the DFSG. I also think that this is non-free, for the same reasons explained in the FAQ. > > Is the combination legal to distribute? (The FSF interpretation is that > distributors can require this > https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ExportWarranties , but is that > the same thing as putting it in the license?) I don't think that what the FSF GPL FAQ is talking about is the same situation as the one we are discussing right now. The cited GPL FAQ states "They are not restricting what you can do with the software", while we are discussing an additional restriction embedded into the license text. Anyway, the LGPL is more permissive than the GPL and poses very few constraints on what is linked with an LGPL-licensed work. Definitely more on what is mixed in, though. So, depending on how those two files are bundled together with the rest of beignet (combined, or dynamically linked, or ...), the resulting work /could/ be legally distributable or not. I don't know for sure. > > If not, what is a good way to report this to upstream? Personally, I think that upstream should be politely approached and explained that the above quoted clause is non-free. The copyright owners of gpuocelot should be persuaded to drop the non-free clause and re-license their work under the plain 3-clause BSD license, if possible. Thanks for raising this issue and good luck with the persuading effort! -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ fsck is a four letter word... ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
Attachment:
pgpYsN5p4NrAI.pgp
Description: PGP signature