[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Maintaining of CodeBlocks



> Hello Vincent,
>
> On Sat, 4 Jun 2016 22:29:22 -0700
> Vincent Cheng <vcheng@debian.org> wrote:
>
>
>> >> License: RDS-Data-Security
>> >>  License to copy and use this software is granted provided that
>> >>  it is identified as the "RSA Data Security, Inc. MD5 Message
>> >>  Digest Algorithm" in all material mentioning or referencing this
>> >>  software or this function.
>> >>  .
>> >>  License is also granted to make and use derivative works
>> >>  provided that such works are identified as "derived from the RSA
>> >>  Data Security, Inc. MD5 Message Digest Algorithm" in all
>> >>  material mentioning or referencing the derived work.
>> >
>> > 1. I believe this clause forces Debian to mention RSA Data Security
>> > on every html page and in every place where CodeBlock is mentioned.
>> > Isn't it?
>> >
>> > 2. Your main code is GPL v3 (note, 3d version, not 3+, because there
>> > are several files which don't allow "any later version"). But GPL is
>> > not compatible with such advertising clauses, see famous BSD-4 vs
>> > GPL example:
>> > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OriginalBSD
>> >
>> > I cc debian-legal, these guys will correct me, if I'm wrong.
>>
>> Ah, you're right that the RSA license contains wording that is quite
>> similar to 4-clause BSD's advertising clause. I've filed #826379 to
>> keep track of this issue, and will report a bug upstream as well.
>>
>> I do want to point out that 4-clause BSD is actually DFSG-compatible
>> and suitable for Debian main [1], so there's still no reason to
>> believe that the RSA md5 license violates the DFSG as you originally
>> claim, even though it contains an advertising clause. Codeblocks is
>> non-distributable merely due to GPL's incompatibility with the RSA md5
>> license (not because it's non-free).


> 2. This license is much more restrictive then BSD one. It's not only
> require you to mention original author in your advertise. It says you
> must attribute CodeBlocks as "derived from the RSA Data Security, Inc.
> MD5 Message Digest Algorithm" in "_all_ material _mentioning_ or
> referencing the derived work". As for me this is inappropriate for Free
> Software. (e.g. I don't think it will pass The dissident test)
>
> But yes, it's somewhere on the edge between free and non-free, so other
> person could judge a little bit different and consider it as
> DFSG-compliant (but still GPL-incompatible).

As far as I understood it BSD-4-clause is only free because the Regents of the
UC dropped the advertising clause in
ftp://ftp.cs.berkeley.edu/pub/4bsd/README.Impt.License.Change. So IMHO the
current case is clearly non-free...

-- 
tobi



Reply to: