Hi Adrian,
Adrian Bunk <bunk@debian.org> writes:
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 06:33:32PM -0400, Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
>> Adrian Bunk <bunk@debian.org> writes:
>> > On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 03:38:57PM -0400, Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
>> >>...
>> >> * Neither name of the company nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
>> >>
>> >> I'm not 100% certain that bundling dprof2calltree with kcachegrind constitutes a "product[s] derived from this software", because I'm also of the opinion that bundling != derivation, but it seems like a lawyer might argue the it does. So kcachegrind and any distributions' package would also need written persmission from OmniTI Computer Consulting.
>> >>...
>> >
>> > You are arguing the 3-Clause BSD License would be non-free?
>>
>> No, because dprof2calltree is modified 4-Clause BSD.
>
> dprof2calltree uses a verbatim copy of 4-Clause BSD
> (except for filling the company placeholders).
>
> This clause is one of the 3 clauses that are identical in 3-clause and
> 4-clause BSD.
>
I'm aware of 4-clause to 3-clause BSD similarities and history.
>> > On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 03:53:48PM -0400, Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
>>
>> It fails the "desert island test" because
>>
>> 1. Any mention of the features or use of this software requires
>> user-facing display of the text "This product includes software
>> developed by OmniTI Computer Consulting".
>>
>> 2. OmniTI Computer Consulting's name cannot be used to "without specific
>> prior written permission"
>>
>> The desert island does not have the paper snailmail service required to
>> fulfil #2 (4th clause of the license).
>
> The 4-clause BSD license is around for 30 years, everyone else
> (including the FSF[1]) does not interpret it the way you do
> that there would be a conflict between these two clauses.
>
> cu
> Adrian
>
> [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OriginalBSD
Did you read the text at that link? "it *does* cause practical
problems, including incompatibility with the GNU GPL [emphasis mine]"
Also here https://infogalactic.com/info/License_compatibility
Many of the most common free software licenses, especially the
permissive licenses, such as the original MIT/X license, BSD
licenses (in the three-clause and two-clause forms, *though not the
original four-clause form*), MPL 2.0, and LGPL, are
"GPL-compatible". That is, their code can be combined with a program
under the GPL without conflict and the new combination would have
the GPL applied to the whole (not the other license) [emphasis
mine].
Finally, the "desert island test" is a DFSG test, and not a DFSG test.
Were you to provide proof from a legal team that the BSD-4-clause was
somehow GPL-compatible, it would still not be DFSG-free, because it
fails the "desert island test" for snail mail. Were OmniTI Computer
Consulting would accept email, it would also fail the "dissident test".
Finally, BSD-4-clause is not an approved license in KDE projects
https://community.kde.org/Policies/Licensing_Policy
Feel free to escalate this issue...I'm humble and am comfortable with
being shown the error of my ways, but I believe this is a genuine
problem.
Regards,
Nicholas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature