On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 15:45:40 +0100 Pierre Chifflier wrote: > Hi,
Hi!
[...]
> *************************************
> *** Specific Picviz license terms ***
> *************************************
[...]
> Note that the GPL places important restrictions on "derived works", yet
> it does not provide a detailed definition of that term.
Well, actually, the GNU GPL v3 does never talk about "derivative
works": it talks about works "based on" other works...
But anyway...
> To avoid
> misunderstandings, we consider an application to constitute a
> "derivative work" for the purpose of this license if it does any of the
> following:
> o Integrates source code from Picviz
> o Integrates images generated by Picviz
Anything that incorporates any output of Picviz is considered as a
"derivative work" of Picviz ?!?
I am not a lawyer, but, as far as I can tell, this is inconsistent with
the actual definition of the concept of "derivative work", as found in
existing copyright laws in various jurisdictions, *unless* the output
of Picviz includes substantial portions of Picviz itself.
> o Executes Picviz and parses the results (as opposed to typical shell or
> execution-menu apps, which simply display raw Picviz output and so are
> not derivative works.)
According to this interpretation any script that does something like
VERS=`env LC_ALL=C apt-cache policy $PACKAGE | awk '/Installed/ { print $2;
}'`
should be considered as a "derivative work" of apt-cache?!?
Again, I am not a lawyer, but this seems to be a bit overreaching...
> o Integrates/includes/aggregates Picviz into a proprietary executable
> installer, such as those produced by InstallShield.
> o Links to a library or executes a program that does any of the above
[...]
> As the maintainer of the picviz Debian package, my question is the
> following:
> Are the clarifications added to the license, and especially the fact
> that generated images by picviz, considered to be additional
> restrictions, and do they cause problems with respect to the DFSG ?
I am under the impression that those "clarifications" are a bit
overreaching and thus constitute further restrictions with respect to
the GNU GPL v3.
They could cause problems with respect to DFSG #9, at least.
However, please note that the GNU GPL v3 has a clause that states that
any further restriction may be removed (see Section 7):
[...]
| All other non-permissive additional terms are considered "further
| restrictions" within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as you
| received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is
| governed by this License along with a term that is a further
| restriction, you may remove that term.
[...]
I think you should try to persuade upstream to drop the above-quoted
"clarifications" and adopt the GNU GPL, without any further restriction
or attempt to change definitions found relevant laws.
I hope this helps a bit.
Bye and thanks for taking this issue seriously.
--
http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt
New GnuPG key, see the transition document!
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
pgpNgd3KcU0uJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
