* On 5/24/20 6:33 PM, Eriberto Mota wrote: > Today I found the file test/ftp.y, in btyacc package, using the > following license: > > test/ftp.y: * Copyright (c) 1985, 1988 Regents of the University of California. > test/ftp.y- * All rights reserved. > test/ftp.y- * > test/ftp.y- * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted > test/ftp.y: * provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are > test/ftp.y- * duplicated in all such forms and that any documentation, > test/ftp.y- * advertising materials, and other materials related to such > test/ftp.y- * distribution and use acknowledge that the software was developed > test/ftp.y- * by the University of California, Berkeley. The name of the > test/ftp.y- * University may not be used to endorse or promote products derived > test/ftp.y- * from this software without specific prior written permission. > test/ftp.y- * THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED ``AS IS'' AND WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS OR > test/ftp.y- * IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE IMPLIED > test/ftp.y- * WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A > PARTICULAR PURPOSE. This, unfortunately, is not the package's license. This file was copied from the Berkeley ftp package and the copyright header is incomplete. That's fine, as usually the software also includes a COPYING or LICENSE file with the complete terms. Case in point: later versions of Berkeley ftp modified the header to include the full (4-Clause-BSD) license, see, e.g., https://opensource.apple.com/source/network_cmds/network_cmds-85/ftpd.tproj/ftpcmd.y.auto.html I won't quote that here because it seems unnecessary. > For me it is not DFSG-compatible because I can't see a clause about > allowing modifications in source code. I tend to disagree with that evaluation. The btyacc package does not really contain a proper (standard) license to begin with. You can't blindly assume that one test file's (partial!) license header is representative for all the other code that has no license notice whatsoever. The only notion of some terms I could find in this package are these in README (c.f., https://www.siber.com/btyacc/README.txt ) (emphasis mine): > [...] > BTYACC was created by Chris Dodd using ideas from many > places and lots of code from the Berkeley Yacc > distribution, which is a public domain yacc clone put > together by the good folks at Berkeley. This code is > distributed with NO WARRANTEE and *is public domain*. > [...] > BTYACC *is a modified version of yacc* that supports > automatic backtracking and semantic disambiguation to > parse ambiguous grammars, as well as syntactic sugar for > inherited attributes (which tend to introduce conflicts). > [...] > Legal Stuff > ----------- > by Chris Dodd and Vadim Maslov > > In English: *BtYacc is freeware*. BtYacc is distributed with > no warranty whatsoever. The author and any other contributors > take no responsibility for any and all consequences of its use. > > In Legalese: LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. NEITHER SIBER SYSTEMS > NOR ANY OF ITS LICENSORS NOR ANY BTYACC CONTRIBUTOR SHALL BE > LIABLE FOR ANY INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL > DAMAGES, OR DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, REVENUE, DATA OR > DATA USE, CAUSED BY BTYACC AND INCURRED BY CUSTOMER OR ANY > THIRD PARTY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION IN CONTRACT OR TORT, EVEN > IF SIBER SYSTEMS HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH > DAMAGES. There are a few red flags: - "Public domain" sounds great, but that's mostly a concept in the US(A). There are countries without such a concept and in those, it would hence be proprietary, as far as I know. Not exactly what the authors seem to have intended. - It was created "using ideas and a lot of code from Berkeley Yacc". This would make it a derivative of Berkeley Yacc, which is BSD-licensed and requires original and modified code to also be (4-Clause-)BSD-licensed. Strictly speaking, IFF btyacc was really heavily based on Berkeley Yacc, then they'd be violating its license by not releasing btyacc under a 4-Clause-BSD license. I believe that Berkeley Yacc has been relicensed to a 3-Clause-BSD license, so that would probably equally be fine. - "Freeware" is a throw-away term. If taken by the letter (i.e., that it is forbidden to charge a fee for redistribution or the like), it would also make it incompatible with and violating the the 4/3-Clause-BSD license employed in Berkeley Yacc, which has no such restriction. That interpretation is pretty draconic, though. I guess that the authors really meant to put emphasis on the fact that they won't charge for it, not to restrict other redistributors. That said, it looks like the software is still being developed, or at least maintained. Would you mind contacting the authors, explaining the issues with their current (non-)licensing scheme and politely ask them to consider to relicense the code under the 3-Clause-BSD license, which would immediately fix all these problems and should (I think) adequately reflect their own intentions? > However, I found several > packages[1] in main section using this license. Which is fine, since, again, most packages sporting this header contain the proper 4-clause-BSD license in the rest of the source code. It would be non-free if this was the only licensing terms, yes, because it doesn't explicitly allow modifications, but fortunately this is almost never the case. Mihai
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature