Frederic Bonnard writes ("[Individual|Corporate] Contributor License
Agreement"):
> I'm wondering if an agreement meets the DFSG during the packaging
> process of a library called libvecpf. It's under GPLv2.1+ but there are
> 2 additional files which are agreements.
> Depending if you are an individual contributor or a corporate one :
> - https://github.com/Libvecpf/libvecpf/blob/master/ICLA.txt
> - https://github.com/Libvecpf/libvecpf/blob/master/CCLA.txt
Agreeing to such a "contributor licence agreement" is not necessary if
one is simply a downstream, using, or developing, the code. The code
itself is licenced under the GNU LGPL v2.1, as stated in the README
and LICENCE files.
The point at which signing the CLA is required, is when one makes a
submission to upstream. That is, upstream will refuse to accept
patches which come without a signed CLA from the contributor.
CLAs vary, and there are different views within Debian about CLAs.
Looking at this particular CLA, it is the worst kind: it is an
asymmetric setup, which (if the contributor signs it) grants the
upstream the right to make proprietary versions, while downstreams are
bound by the copyleft. Personally, I would not sign such a CLA.
I think it is consensus within Debian that contributors to Debian
should not be required to sign such CLAs.
And of course, contributors to Debian need to be able to make changes
to the code, including the "upstream" parts of the code, and share
them with other Debian users and with our downstreams and with peer
distros.
But that does not mean that the package cannot be in Debian despite
the CLA. (There are other packages in Debian whose upstreams impose
unpleasant CLAs.)
If you as the prospective maintainer are prepared to commit to extra
work, then Debian's needs (and those of our downstreams, users, and
collaborators) can be met.
Effectively, I think you would need to take on the role of upstream,
as regards Debian:
You would need to take and carry, indefinitely, all technically
suitable patches provided by those Debian contributors who refused to
sign the CLA. Where the Debian version of the package exhibits bugs,
it might be necessary for you to investigate them, since upstream
probably wouldn't want to work on the Debian version.
You should collaborate with any other distros etc., so that other
downstreams can share patches which are un-upstreamble for CLA
reasons.
Perhaps eventually the version with the un-upstreamable Debian patches
will become the most widely used version, displacing the original
upstream. If not, then there will be merge work to be done in
perpetuity, as Debian's version would effectively be a fork.
If you are prepared to do all that, then as far as everyone else is
concerned, the program is free software.
> If so, what could be changed to make it DFSG compliant ?
Of course it would be much better if upstream dropped the CLA. It may
be worth asking.
But some CLA-imposing upstreams have deliberately decided to have a
CLA, because they feel that their business interests are best served
by putting themselves in a position of power over their users and
downstreams. Such (unethical) upstreams are unlikely to agree to get
rid of the CLA.
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
