>>>>> On Wed, 28 Jul 1999 14:57:16 +0200, Samuel Hocevar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>> said:
Samuel> [To: programmers listed as IglooFTP contributors] [Cc: to Samuel> debian-legal mailing list] Samuel> Hello, sorry for bothering you about what you might consider Samuel> a quite futile issue. Samuel> As you might know, Jean-Marc Jacquet released a new 'PRO' Samuel> version of his ftp software IglooFTP. The main point is that Samuel> not only it has a non-free license, but sources aren't even Samuel> distributed any more: Samuel> http://www.littleigloo.org/iglooftp.php3 I downloaded the source and am taking a gander at it. The only licenses I've been able to find is are a copy of the Artistic license (at least it's named that and it looks correct (I haven't looked word for word)) and the text: /* IglooFTP - Graphical and User Friendly FTP Client. * Copyright (c) 1998-1999 Jean-Marc Jacquet. * All rights reserved. * * THIS PACKAGE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND WITHOUT ANY * EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, WITHOUT * LIMITATION, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY * AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE * * IglooFTP Original Packages, information and support, * can be obtained at : * http://www.littleigloo.org * * */ in the top level "COPYRIGHT" file and all the source files I looked at (which includes all of them in src (I'll ignore the one in lib which is netscape-remote). Another couple of interesting things is that the LSM entry lists the copyright as "OpenSource". And the README file says: LICENSE : ========= OpenSource ( For detail refer to "Help" menu -> "License" ) I'm not sure how this package was classified as GPL to begin with. There are debian modifications that point to the GPL in /usr/share/common-licenses rather than the artistic license it seems to want to include. That looks suspicious to me. I've CCed the Debian maintainer for clarification. (Maybe it was GPLed at 0.3.x and the changes persisted. Seems likely to me.) With all the indications that it is "OpenSource" scattered around I guess we can assume that it was open source despite none of the source files actually saying this. Is this a fair assessment? Samuel> I also noticed that Jean-Marc has removed all traces of the Samuel> GPLed Samuel> 0.6.1 release from his website; the download section at Samuel> http://www.littleigloo.org/softwares_fr.html#IGLOOFTP leads Samuel> to broken links. But the GPLed 0.6.1 version still exists; it Samuel> is in the source tree of the Debian distribution, for Samuel> instance. Was it ever GPLed? Looking at the source in Debian I'm not sure that's true. (Of course I don't have the 0.3.x source to look at. Samuel> Moreover, Jean-Marc re-released 0.6.1 under the Artistic Samuel> license, which I don't know if he is allowed to do without Samuel> changing the version number. Meanwhile, he implemented Samuel> Igor's patch for VMS to one of those two 0.6.1 versions. Samuel> So, what I intend to do is to ask Jean-Marc why he released Samuel> his program under a non-free license, and whether he agrees Samuel> to change his mind. Samuel> Before that, I would like to know: Samuel> - was Jean-Marc allowed to release IglooFTP 0.6.1 under the Samuel> GPL, Samuel> and later release the very same version under a different Samuel> license ? If it's all his code most certainly. Samuel> - what license was Igor's patch released under ? Samuel> - did the other contributors provide patches or just ideas ? Samuel> It Samuel> they were patches, what license were they released under ? Samuel> - was Jean-Marc allowed to use those patches in the non-free Samuel> version Samuel> of IglooFTP ? All good questions that should be answered. Dres -- @James LewisMoss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Blessed Be! @ http://www.ioa.com/~dres | Linux is kewl! @"Argue for your limitations and sure enough, they're yours." Bach
