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

Re: Licensing of jeuclid

On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 15:55:40 +0100
Julien Puydt <julien.puydt@laposte.net> wrote:

> Hi,
> according to bug #876733, there is a licensing problem with jeuclid :
> - the LICENSE.txt file [1] says Apache 2.0 ;

LICENSE.txt showed up in revision b9d5f518ae61 (61) as a rename of LICENSE.
LICENSE showed up in revision 7a11e25aacfa (0) during a CVS import.

support/LICENSE.txt shows up in revision 472677a11fef (683).. and is Apache-2.0.

> - the NOTICE file [2] looks like an Apache 1.0.

NOTICE also showed up in revision 7a11e25aacfa (0).

NOTICE seems to be Apache-1.1 with word replacements. (not Apache-1.0)

> My interpretation of the issue is that if there are two licenses on the
> code, then as long as the necessary DFSG-rights are given, there is no
> problem.

I would argue that the Author's clear intention was to license this work under
Apache-2.0. This is where the full license text is correctly copied. A LICENSE
file is typically the authority to a project, so much so that many tools ignore
a NOTICE file when checking licenses if a LICENSE file is present.

Additionally, Apache-2.0 invalidates a contradicting license by paragraph 4(d).
What's in NOTICE violates the license terms of what's in LICENSE.

> Notice that upstream seems unreactive since years now, so even though
> I'm also opening a ticket there [3], moving forward not expecting an
> answer seems the most reasonable course of action.

Considering the last commit was in 2012, a lack of response is not in any way
surprising. You opened that ticket less than a day ago.

> What do you think about the matter?

I'd start by making an attempt to contact maxberger directly, and then
definitely have some patience. They may be on vacation, experiencing
health/family/existential problems, or prefer checking email infrequently.

If you don't get a response, I would argue that the author's clear intent was
to license the work under the Apache-2.0 license and believed the NOTICE file
was meant for a more brief form of the file. I would make that argument based
on the assumption that they didn't read the license, or the portion where it
tells you what the brief form looks like.

Michael Lustfield

Reply to: