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

Re: tomboy-ng package with non standard license.



Is this the conversation they had about the license? It doesn't seem very robust...

First of all, did they even have the authority to modify the license? Were there contributors? Did the contributors sign a CLA that allowed the license to be changed in this way? Or was it just the package maintainer deciding to change the license? Or, does the package just have a single author?

Second of all, nobody seems to have explained why they aren't using a standard license. They removed the clause about modifications, but the new license still doesn't clarify whether modifications are allowed or not. Very confusing.

They do mention modified code, so I agree that this probably does imply a permission to modify... But I always find it so annoying when developers are hostile to any clear and straightforward licensing practice.

Regards,

Daniel J. Hakimi
B.S. Philosophy, RPI 2012
B.S. Computer Science, RPI 2012
J.D. Cardozo Law 2015


On Sat, Sep 12, 2020 at 2:03 AM David Bannon <dbannon@internode.on.net> wrote:
Thank you Paul, I am afraid I am a still a little unsure however.


On 12/9/20 11:29 am, Paul Wise wrote:
> Dependencies should be packaged separately, not copied into the
> package that depends on them.

Yes, I understand that. However, LCL Packages usually have no existence
outside the Lazarus IDE. The IDE has built in tools to fetch and install
such packages and most Lazarus based applications are built from within
the IDE. However, that will not work with the Debian build system. It
would not be possible to make a general purpose KControls Debian
package, the Lazarus IDE uses a 'pull' model for its packages, it will
not accept a 'push'. Packages need to be installed in user space,
normally, on Linux, this is in a configuration dependent hidden
directory in $HOME.

Alternatively, if I was to make a Debian KControls package intended only
for command line building of my specific app, and thats what it would
have to be, I am quite sure it would be judged as inappropriate. I would
need to 'invent' a specific place to put the files and then when
building tomboy-ng, would look for them in that place. Thats wrong !


>> This code is distributed as a freeware. You are free to use it as part  of your application for any purpose including freeware, commercial and  shareware applications. The origin of this source code must not be   misrepresented; you must not claim your authorship. All redistributions  of the original or modified source code must retain the original copyright  notice. The Author accepts no liability for any damage that may result  from using this code.
> This license contains an implicit permission to modify, but it would
> be much better to make it explicit. If you are going to go to the
> trouble of asking upstream to get permission from all the copyright
> holders to change the license, it would be much better to just switch
> to a standard license (GPL, MIT or BSD) though.

Sorry, unsure of what you mean here. I don't intend asking upstream to
change its license. Its unlikely I will get TK (the KControls author) to
change the KControls license. When he first moved to Github, we
discussed the license extensively, his original license would,
unintentionally, have prevented it use. What we have now is the best we
can hope for. Or do you mean I should change my license (that applies to
my app, tomboy-ng) to make it somehow more compatible ?


Paul, I wonder if we can talk about the "should"s and the "must"s ? I
really have no control over TK's license. If its unacceptable, then
thats what it is. At some time in the future, its just possible i will
use RichMemo instead but until then, this approach is the only one open
to me. 


David




Reply to: