Re: Unsure about a License with mandatory attribution clause
Andreas Moog <andreas.moog@warperbbs.de> writes:
> while packaging libml I noticed the following part in a license text:
> (https://github.com/volkszaehler/libsml/blob/master/test/unity/license.txt)
>
> The end-user documentation included with the redistribution, if any,
> must include the following acknowledgment: "This product includes
> software developed for the Unity Project, by Mike Karlesky, Mark
> VanderVoord, and Greg Williams and other contributors", in the same
> place and form as other third-party acknowledgments. Alternately,
> this acknowledgment may appear in the software itself, in the same
> form and location as other such third-party acknowledgments.
This is more specific, but IMO not more onerous, than attribution
clauses in the BSD licenses.
So the questions to answer, I think, are: Does this restrict the
recipient's freedoms under DFSG?
* Attribution requirement is, in general, considered DFSG-free.
* The clause only takes effect if there is already “end-user
documentation”. All Debian packages must be distributed with end-user
documentation; the ‘debian/copyright’ file is part of that, as you
point out.
* The attribution states a fact that will, I believe, remain true so
long as the software continues. (Some licenses, e.g. the FDL, require
preserving statements of fact that are not always true. So it's good
to consider this question.)
* The clause also allows for the notice to appear “in the same form and
location as other such third-party acknowledgements”. So, that
definitely describes the ‘debian/copyright’ file.
My conclusion is that this is a DFSG-free license, with an
unconventionally specific requirement of attribution.
I would prefer that the copyright holders should choose a conventional
well-understood license, but I don't see that this one causes any
specific problem for Debian recipients.
--
\ “Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability.” —Edsger W. |
`\ Dijkstra |
_o__) |
Ben Finney
Reply to: