Your message dated Thu, 22 Mar 2018 18:30:53 +0100
with message-id <260a6f63-5aab-2a95-416d-fb3d9d4d0...@debian.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#893561: libtablelayout-java: license does not seem to
meet the DFSG
has caused the Debian Bug report #893561,
regarding libtablelayout-java: license does not seem to meet the DFSG
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)
--
893561: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=893561
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: libtablelayout-java
Version: 20090826-3
Severity: serious
Justification: Policy 2.2.1
Hello!
Thanks for maintaining this package in Debian.
I noticed that the license was
[discussed](https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2009/06/msg00050.html)
on debian-legal a long time ago.
My
[opinion](https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2009/06/msg00053.html)
was that at least two clauses fail to meet the DFSG.
The debian/copyright file states, in part:
| The source code has been modified to make the package suitable for main (see
| license III. 4.). The package namespace has been changed from
| info.clearthought.layout to org.debian.tablelayout.
Personally, I don't think that applying a patch that changes the namespace
is enough to make the package suitable for Debian main.
I mean: it's true that it is now possible to create drop-in replacements
for the Debian package (without further changing the namespace), but it is
still forbidden to create a modified version that changes the namespace
back to "info.clearthought".
I think that this restriction goes beyond what is allowed by DFSG#4.
Additionally, the license is clearly GPL-incompatible, which may
be an issue for other packages that link with this library.
Is it possible to persuade the upstream copyright holder to
drop clauses III.3 and III.4?
Or, even better, to re-license the library under well-vetted and
clearly DFSG-free terms, such as the
[Expat/MIT license](http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt)
or the
[zlib license](http://www.zlib.net/zlib_license.html)
?
I hope this can be done.
Thanks for your time and helpfulness!
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Am 19.03.2018 um 22:28 schrieb Francesco Poli (wintermute):
> Package: libtablelayout-java
> Version: 20090826-3
> Severity: serious
> Justification: Policy 2.2.1
>
> Hello!
> Thanks for maintaining this package in Debian.
>
> I noticed that the license was
> [discussed](https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2009/06/msg00050.html)
> on debian-legal a long time ago.
> My
> [opinion](https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2009/06/msg00053.html)
> was that at least two clauses fail to meet the DFSG.
In the end the ftp-team accepted the package into Debian and that is the
only thing that counts.
>
> The debian/copyright file states, in part:
>
> | The source code has been modified to make the package suitable for main (see
> | license III. 4.). The package namespace has been changed from
> | info.clearthought.layout to org.debian.tablelayout.
>
> Personally, I don't think that applying a patch that changes the namespace
> is enough to make the package suitable for Debian main.
This is certainly enough. We change the namespace all the time in Debian
Java packages by using maven.rules for example. Also using patch files
is explicitly allowed by DFSG 4.
> I mean: it's true that it is now possible to create drop-in replacements
> for the Debian package (without further changing the namespace), but it is
> still forbidden to create a modified version that changes the namespace
> back to "info.clearthought".
>
> I think that this restriction goes beyond what is allowed by DFSG#4.
This is your personal opinion. It was already discussed on debian-legal
back in 2009 that the license is still acceptable and in the spirit of
the DFSG.
> Additionally, the license is clearly GPL-incompatible, which may
> be an issue for other packages that link with this library.
>
> Is it possible to persuade the upstream copyright holder to
> drop clauses III.3 and III.4?
> Or, even better, to re-license the library under well-vetted and
> clearly DFSG-free terms, such as the
> [Expat/MIT license](http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt)
> or the
> [zlib license](http://www.zlib.net/zlib_license.html)
> ?
No. We do not need to persuade the upstream copyright holder to change
the license as long as the package was accepted by the ftp-team. If you
think a package is GPL-incompatible and you are not sure whether you can
use it together with this library you should seek legal advice in your
country. This is out-of-scope for Debian and as far as I am and the rest
of the team are concerned, this is not an issue for us. Closing as
not-a-bug.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--- End Message ---
