Re: tomboy-ng package with non standard license.
I thank you for that Tobias, a positive move !
However, I don't believe it will help. I think TK is concerned about
conventional licenses allowing someone to remove his name from the
package, ship it as its own. Near as I can tell, thats permitted if some
changes are made. Happened to me...
It comes down to what you are actually copyrigth-ing, the syntax, the
overall structure, solving a problem in a particular way ......
I accept that, believe in the open source world, thats how it should be.
TK does not.
Thanks for you help.
Davo
On 24/9/20 7:12 pm, Tobias Frost wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> I just responded to the ticket in github:
>
> Let me briefly chime in… I was interacting on the debian-legal thread about
> this topic:
>
> @kryslt it would be very helpful if you could confirm that your interpreation
> of you license also expliclitly allows modification and distribution.
>
> Custom licenses are always problematic, because of the know reasons (wetted by
> layers*, compatiblities with other licenses, license proliferation…), so may I
> suggest that you look into some standard licensing and either change it towards
> or possible just dual-license it? Looking at the license you have currently,
> may I suggest you look into BSD-3-clause?
> (https://choosealicense.com/licenses/bsd-3-clause-clear/) (If this is OK for
> you, I'd be very happy to provide an PR to change the license headers.)
>
> You write in your README that all files without notice are public domain.
> Please note that PublicDomain is not a thing world wide. For example, here in
> Germany, a author _cannot_ legally waive its own copyright, so would you mind
> to change this sentence to "If there is none, the code is licensed under CC0."?
> (https://choosealicense.com/licenses/cc0-1.0/ ) It's the PublicDomain
> equivalent, but written to be legally ok worldwide.
>
> (There is a nice chart at https://choosealicense.com/appendix/ I find very
> helpful)
>
> * IANAL, but I think your liability clause is too short and "forgets" some
> case… See the BSD-3
>
> Thanks for considering! And sorry for possibly annoying you. License stuff is
> unfortunatly boring, but required. We'd like to see your work in Debian through
> tomboy-ng, but the license could be a blocking point. I hope you can help
> untangling it…
>
> Cheers. tobi (with his Debian Developer hat on)
>
> Lets see if that helps.
>
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 09:37:57AM +1000, David Bannon wrote:
>> Hi Folks, time we resolved this question about tomboy-ng and its use of
>> the KControls build time library. Its now ten days since I wrote to TK,
>> the kcontrols author, asking if he would consider a more liberal
>> license. I have not had an answer and think we can assume I won't get one.
>>
>> The known facts -
>>
>> tomboy-ng needs the kcontrols source files at build time. Such src
>> libraries normally target an IDE and are unsuited to standalone debian
>> packaging. So a sunset of kcontrols needs to be shipped with the
>> tomboy-ng SRC package.
>>
>> kcontrols has a license that while not preventing changes or
>> redistribution, it does not explicitly grant permission to do so.
>>
>> TK has clearly, on the public record stated that my proposed use of
>> kcontrols is acceptable. This was in answer to a question that stated I
>> would use a subset of kcontrols and distribute in a debian SRC package.
>> https://github.com/kryslt/KControls/issues/27 - "It is acceptable, thank
>> you for asking."
>>
>> TK still maintains kcontrols but has made it clear he does not have the
>> time to make changes he finds unnecessary.
>> tomboy-ng could use an alternative to kcontrols but this would break its
>> cross platform commitment. This would gravely affect existing users.
>>
>> My question to the debian legal team is "Given TK's clear statement that
>> the proposed use is acceptable, but noting the shortcomings in its
>> license, would you recommend I abandon this project or not ?"
> (You won't get an authoritive answer here, as this is ftp-masters realm)
> IMHO the license is border line, and it would be much better if the rights
> we care about are explicitly granted.
>
Reply to: