Re: tomboy-ng package with non standard license.
Hi Folks, just to inform you I have not, yet given up on this project.
I have written to TK, the author or KControls, some five days ago now. I
outlined your concerns about the KControls license and included, with
vague attribution, a few quotes. And asked would he consider a new, more
conventional license.
So far I have not had an answer, that may be because he considers it
does not need an additional answer, he has already said, on record, that
he considers my proposed use to be acceptable. I have noticed, in the
past, he often ignores questions he considers silly !
I will however give him some more time before I abandon the project.
Remaining hopeful.
David
On 14/9/20 5:21 pm, Tobias Frost wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 11:49:10AM +1000, David Bannon wrote:
>
> Chiming in…
>
>> *** Daniel's Issues
>>
>>> Also, based on Daniel Hakimi's mail, it sounds like the KControls
>>> author may have illegally changed the license, since there is no
>>> indication in the commit message that they got approval from all the
>>> copyright holders and looking at the git history there are a couple of
>>> other contributors other than Tomas Krysl, but OTOH their contributions
>>> don't appear to be large so maybe they aren't copyrightable.
> Right, (though IANAL and that might be not gloablly the case)
> (I did not check the changes if they are minor or not though)
>
>> Daniel's message is a interesting one. I have sent TK a few 'patches',
>> one or two line bug fixes, that were quietly applied without
>> acknowledgement. I would not, in any way, expect to be classed as an
>> author on the basis of those patches.
>>
>> If Daniel is referring to earlier work than that, well, I cannot
>> comment. TK used to have a blog that offered support and elicited
>> suggestions/bug reports/patches. From memory, it stated that any
>> contribution to the blog implied assigning ownership. I certainly
>> regarded it as working like that.
> Is this archived e.g on the WayBackMachine?
>
>> And, no Daniel, the email discussion I had with TK about the license
>> occurred just before the KControls moved to github. While I have the
>> emails on record, they were sent in confidence and I intend to respect
>> that confidence.
> Can you ask if those mails can be released? Private mails won't help
> in the matter, only whati's in the public can be referred to.
>
>> Daniel, I agree, life would be a lot easier if everyone used standard,
>> acceptable licenses. However, sadly, they do not.
> Sorry, did not follow too closely this thread but, have you asked them?
>
> I see an additional problem with the license: Beside being implicit only
> on modifcations, it is the same way implicit when it comes to distribution.
> Making those explicit permission would help; Especially distribution, because
> without, you can not even go to non-free.*
>
> It would really help the case if upstream switches to some well-known license.
>
>> I personally think I am definitely using kcontrols in a manner approved
>> by TK and doing so mostly consistent with its stated license. However,
>> if its felt by your good selves that TK himself is not in a position to
>> determine license issues, then its a deal breaker. If you think the
>> current model is untenable, please say so, I need to advise my end
>> users, who are requesting the Debian incorporation, of this fact.
> IMHO we usually trust upstreams; unless we do have reasons not
> to trust upstream…
> On the other side. cooporation from upstream would help to dismiss those
> concerns.
>
Reply to: