On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 16:53:12 +0100 Alex Mestiashvili wrote:
> On 02/26/2018 03:50 PM, Walter Landry wrote:
[...]
> > It looks a like the LGPL-2. In any event, this license is fine as is.
> > If anyone wants to make modifications that are not allowed by the
> > existing text, then they can modify it under GPL-2+ terms. There are
> > other examples in the archive of this (e.g. CECILL).
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Walter Landry
> >
>
> I see. Now I also found this license (thanks to codesearch.debian.net)
> in openbabel package as LGPL-2.1 compatible.
Hello.
This "IUPAC/InChI-Trust InChI Licence No. 1.0" appears to have been
created starting from the GNU LGPL v2.1, by the following steps:
0) remove the preamble
1) change the license name
2) use the British spelling for the word "license" (that is to say,
"licence")
3) add the definition of "IUPAC"
4) add one explicit clarification to clause 2c, which states that
the requirement does not extend to any "work that uses the Library"
5) drop some reasoning about executable binaries as derivative works in
section 5
6) relax some requirements on distribution of "works that use the
Library" in section 6
7) add a new section 15 which includes a non-free restriction
on how you can refer to the output of a modified library:
| 15. If you modify the Library in any way whatsoever, the output from
| any such modified Library may not be referred to as 'InChI' or any
| similar name. Any attempt to refer to such output as 'InChI' will
| automatically terminate your rights under this Licence.
8) rephrase the instructions for use of the license
I think this license contributes to the (bad) license proliferation
festival that we sadly continue to witness.
In my own personal opinion, it includes at least one non-free
restriction (in its section 15), but, luckily, is one-way convertible
to the GNU GPL version 2 or later.
Hence, I think that a work solely licensed under the terms of this
"IUPAC/InChI-Trust InChI Licence No. 1.0" complies or may be made to
comply with the DFSG.
But we have to remember that such a work can be considered as DFSG-free
only as long as it is not linked with GPL-incompatible works!
I am not sure which is the usual practice in Debian for cases like this:
should the conversion-to-GPL be explicitly performed while packaging the
work and the original license just mentioned in the debian/copyright
file for completeness' sake?
or should the work be left as-is (with the original license in the
debian/copyright file), thus relying on the possibility to apply the GPL
whenever the need arises?
What do other debian-legal regulars think?
--
http://www.inventati.org/frx/
There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory!
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
Attachment:
pgp_oUGTJmT7U.pgp
Description: PGP signature