Le jeudi, 8 janvier 2015, 11.37:45 Jonas Smedegaard a écrit : > Hi Chris, > > Quoting Chris Liddell (2015-01-08 08:31:45) > > > On 07/01/15 21:06, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: > >> Le mercredi, 7 janvier 2015, 12.17:43 Jonas Smedegaard a écrit : > >>>> This is fixed in upstream's 9.14. I'll see with the release team > >>>> if > >>>> we can backport this into Jessie. > >>> > >>> Great. But what about its licensing? I guess upstream treat it > >>> as > >>> AGPL, so we may risk disagreeing with them if we choose to ignore > >>> that - e.g. by treating it as too small to be copyright-protected. > >> > >> Best is to ask I guess. Let's try to see what the upstream author > >> of > >> the patch says. Hereby CC'ing him. > >> > >> Chris: We (Debian) want to include your patch for the Ghostscript > >> bug > >> 695031 "don't assume we can read a font file", but we are wondering > >> about its licensing situation. > >> > >> Debian is shipping ghostscript 9.06, licensed under GPL-3, but you > >> included this patch in ghostscript 9.14, which is licensed under > >> AGPL. > >> > >> We have three options: > >> > >> a) consider your patch as too small to be copyright-protected. This > >> > >> would allow us to include is in GPL'd ghostscript 9.06. It'd be > >> nice to have your confirmation on this though. > >> > >> b) get your patch also GPL-licensed, allowing us to include it in > >> > >> GPL'd ghostscript 9.06. It'd be mandatory to have an explicit > >> statement from you (as author of the patch) on that. > >> > >> c) None of the above, leaving the bug open for Debian Jessie, > >> thereby > >> > >> leaving our users with a bug in our next stable release. > >> Needless > >> to say we'd prefer any of the two above solutions. > >> > >> Cheers, and thanks in advance, > > > > So, for clarity, that will be this commit: > > > > http://git.ghostscript.com/?p=ghostpdl.git;a=blobdiff;f=gs/Resource/ > > Init/gs_fonts.ps;h=8ab6872e > > > > (or, for convenience: http://tinyurl.com/pvr4acp ) > > > > We'd have no problem with you patching an older, non-AGPL release > > with that - we'd regard it as being covered by your "a" case above. > > It's also a sufficiently obvious solution that any competent > > Postscript programmer would almost certainly come up with the same > > solution, which would make copyright enforcement decidedly > > questionable, too. > > > > So go ahead and use that patch. > > > > In the interests of the usual legal disclaimers, though, this only > > applies to the particular patch linked above, so any other patches > > in > > the future will need to be considered on a case-by-case basis. > > Thanks, Chris, for taking the time with this. > > Your judgement makes good sense, and is obviously helpful for us. Indeed, thank you very much! Cheers, OdyX
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.