Hi Adrian, Adrian Bunk <b...@debian.org> writes:
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 06:33:32PM -0400, Nicholas D Steeves wrote: >> Adrian Bunk <b...@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
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
