On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 21:00:00 +0100 Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote: > On 14.12.2015 22:56, Francesco Poli wrote: [...] > > Hence, they basically say that some OASIS files (that they distribute > > under DFSG-free terms) are derived, in part, from some ISO files which > > do *not* grant any permission to modify. > > > > Without any additional explanation, this sounds like a copyright > > violation. > > Here our interpretations diverge then. Indeed it's always allowed to > suspect, but I'd much prefer that a RC bug is filed after those > suspects are confirmed.
Well, but it's not just that I *suspect* that the OASIS files are derived from some ISO files which do not grant any permission to modify. It's written in the OASIS files themselves that this is the case! Hence, in the absence of an explanation of how this was legally allowed, it really seems that something is wrong. Hence the bug report... > > >> If they say 'yes', how one is > >> supposed to verify that they really do? > > > > A simple "yes" answer would not suffice: they need to provide a > > convincing explanation... > > Out of curiosity, what can that be? I have already mentioned some examples of possible explanations. If one such explanation holds, then everything is fine. Please note that I assume good faith on the OASIS side: probably they have an explanation (but they forgot to clearly document it) or they violated the ISO copyright by mistake... Other scenarios are possible, of course, but I think they are less likely to be the case. > > > Dropping the OASIS files from package fbreader is the last resort > > solution, assuming that those files are not strictly needed for the > > package to provide significant functionality. > > If a violation is present, this will be my first resort, otherwise > fbreader will disappear from testing very quickly. > Between absense of fbreader and worse DocBook format support in > fbreader, I choose second. If you mean that dropping the troublesome files from the package will be your first *temporary* course of action, while attempting to find a better solution, then I totally agree with you. What I meant is that I would consider the *permanent* removal of the files as a last resort solution, if all else fails. I hope you agree with me. [...] > > Please note that, as I have previously said, one FTP Assistant > > confirmed that files under the ISO license are not fit for Debian main: > > https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2015/12/msg00000.html > > I don't read that as something I can directly apply for things > under OASIS copyright. Of course I might be wrong, that's > why I invited Debian archive masters to the loop. No reason > for us to argue any longer, let's just wait for what they > think. [...] OK, let's wait for a response from the FTP Masters, but please investigate the legal status of the OASIS files in the meanwhile. Thanks for your time and patience. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
pgpsnehtRDz71.pgp
Description: PGP signature
