Re: Is mpage DFSG compatible?
Eriberto Mota <eriberto@debian.org> writes:
> I am doing a revision over the orphaned package 'mpage' (in main tree).
>
> When migrating the debian/copyright file to 1.0 format, I did a full
> revision in source code
Thank you! This is important work to be done by the maintainer of any
package in Debian.
> The first issue is the license used by mpage:
>
> * Permission is granted to anyone to make or distribute verbatim
> * copies of this document as received, in any medium, provided
> * that this copyright notice is preserved, and that the
> * distributor grants the recipient permission for further
> * redistribution as permitted by this notice.
>
> IMO, this license doesn't allow modify the source code. So, this
> license is inadequate.
Yes, the permission is restricted to only “verbatim copies”, which
explicitly disallows modification. Lacking that permission means the
work fails DFSG §3 and is non-free.
> The second issue is the license of the Contrib/mfix/test.ps file:
>
> % Copyright (c) 1986-89, ArborText, Inc.
> % Permission to copy is granted so long as the PostScript code
> % is not resold or used in a commercial product.
Yes, there is no clear permission to redistribute (“copy” does not mean
“redistribute copies”), no permission to redistribute modified or
derived works, and explicit denial of permission to use the work for
commercial purposes. Those fail DFSG §1, §2, §3, and §6, making the work
non-free.
> In this case, the solution is remove the file (not essential, a
> contrib only).
That's a valid solution for this file.
If the copyright holder could be contacted, it would be better to obtain
an explicit written free license; but if in your assessment the file is
not needed anyway, it is simpler to remove the file from the source
package.
> Well, I need your opinions about what to do. Should be this package
> moved to non-free? Must it be removed? Am I wrong?
The ‘CHANGES’ file contains an entry under “October 2002”:
October 2002
- Released version 2.5.3
- Start moving mapge into the GPL...
This at least suggests the upstream developer at the time of that entry
intended to explicitly change the license of the whole work to GNU
General Public License.
You could contact the upstream copyright holder, cite that changelog
entry, and request they follow the instructions in GNU GPL v3 to
effectively grant license for every part of the work to all recipients.
There needs to be an explicit written grant of license to the recipient,
preferably in the work itself and not conflicting with any other
notices (so those conflicting notices should be removed by the copyright
holder who wrote them).
--
\ “It's easy to play any musical instrument: all you have to do |
`\ is touch the right key at the right time and the instrument |
_o__) will play itself.” —Johann Sebastian Bach |
Ben Finney
Reply to: