Re: libfcgi-perl copyright issue
>>>>> On Wed, 9 Mar 2016, Tony Rutkowski wrote:
> Doesn't this entail getting agreement among all
> the Linux distributors as well, not just Debian?
No, this is something to be fixed upstream, and then it will of course
apply to all downstreams. *If* it is really a problem, which I doubt.
> On 2016-03-09 4:42 AM, Graham Knop wrote:
>> Based on my reading, the libfcgi-perl debian package has a licensing
>> issue. The base package includes a file LICENSE.TERMS, which shows a
>> license roughly equivalent to the MIT license. It does however
>> include the following phrase:
>>
>> The following terms apply to all files associated with the Software
>> and Documentation
>> unless explicitly disclaimed in individual files.
So all files included in the tarball can be distributed under the
terms of the LICENSE.TERMS file, unless "explicitly disclaimed".
>> There are three files, fcgios.h, os_unix.c, and os_win32.c, which
>> include a header that conflicts with the base MIT-style terms. They
>> include the following:
>>
>> * Copyright (c) 1995 Open Market, Inc.
>> * All rights reserved.
>> *
>> * This file contains proprietary and confidential information and
>> * remains the unpublished property of Open Market, Inc. Use,
>> * disclosure, or reproduction is prohibited except as permitted by
>> * express written license agreement with Open Market, Inc.
>> *
>> * Bill Snapper
>> * snapper@openmarket.com
>> This would appear to me to be "explicitly disclaimed" as not following
>> the LICENSE.TERMS license. And also certainly not following the DFSG.
I disagree. Certainly, it is not the cleanest situation, but while the
header may imply that LICENSE.TERMS doesn't apply to the file, it
certainly doesn't explicitly say that.
EXPLICIT
1 a : fully revealed or expressed without vagueness, implication,
or ambiguity : leaving no question as to meaning or intent
(Merriam-Webster)
On the contrary, the header says "all rights reserved" (which is the
default under copyright law) and then it says in the second paragraph
that the file can be distributed if permitted by license. I would
conclude that LICENSE.TERMS just constitutes such a license.
IANAL,
Ulrich
Reply to: