Re: copyright issues on debian
On 12/10/2015 11:29 am, Drew Parsons wrote:
> Hi Jonathan, I think some of the frustration you're experiencing might
> come from different degrees of thought about how important the specific
> issue is. You're reading the licence mismatch as a black&white
> violation. But in this specific r-cran situation, to use an argument
> ad reductio, or ad absurdio, by taking the version numbers out of the
> argument, the question is whether GPL licenced software is allowed to
> link against GPL-licenced software.
>
> When you read it that way, it might make it easier to understand why
> people aren't so worried about the violation. The violation is in the
> technicalities of the GPL versions. That does matter in a legal sense.
> But for the non-legal majority it's a bit of a "whatEver". The
> difference in attitude come from whether a person thinks the spirit or
> the letter of the licence is more important.
>
> Place these differences of attitude in a science context and as a
> generalisation you'll find science-oriented people are more likely to
> be pragmatic, i.e. not worried about licence technicalities. They just
> want the code to work.
>
> Historically this sort of thing can happen if the author just uses the
> latest version of the GPL available at the time, and doesn't bother to
> follow later changes in the GPL (but doesn't object to them either). So
> it could well be that in the author's mind there is no violation. This
> is partly why authors are encouraged to include the clause "or later
> version", to avoid the ambiguity.
>
> There are other contexts where the violation is certainly clear cut.
> Finding GPL code in Microsoft Windows, you'd get more discussion on
> that. Likewise finding unlicenced (unauthorised, stolen) proprietary
> code in Debian, say the code for Oracle's database, would be swiftly
> removed. Finding a case where a GPL-2 author explicitly has a
> conscious conscientious objection to GPL-3 would be more black&white.
>
> In this r-cran example though, it sounds more like the author simply
> never got round to updating the licence, or didn't see it important
> enough to worry about. Asking the author to worry about it could be a
> simple way of fixing the problem.
yup. i've been talking with upstream, he's not completely convinced. i
think if i can get debian to weigh in on it, then that would clinch it.
> But you did the right thing to ask the question, and debian-legal is
> the right place to ask such questions. That's just a discussion forum
> though. More legally binding advice could be found from places like
> SPI http://www.spi-inc.org/projects/services/
>
>
> Drew
>
> p.s. I'm not meaning to make a specific judgement on this r-cran case
> except to say "you're probably right". I'm just addressing the general
> question of why it wouldn't seem to be so important to some people.
cheers, appreciate it.
jonathon
--
JASP - A Fresh Way to Do Statistics
http://jasp-stats.org/
--
How happy is he born and taught,
That serveth not another's will;
Whose armour is his honest thought,
And simple truth his utmost skill
This man is freed from servile bands
Of hope to rise, or fear to fall:
Lord of himself, though not of lands,
And, having nothing, yet hath all.
-- Sir Henry Wotton
Reply to: