On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 15:55:40 +0100 Julien Puydt <julien.pu...@laposte.net> wrote:
> Hi, > > according to bug #876733, there is a licensing problem with jeuclid : > - the LICENSE.txt file [1] says Apache 2.0 ; LICENSE.txt showed up in revision b9d5f518ae61 (61) as a rename of LICENSE. LICENSE showed up in revision 7a11e25aacfa (0) during a CVS import. support/LICENSE.txt shows up in revision 472677a11fef (683).. and is Apache-2.0. > - the NOTICE file [2] looks like an Apache 1.0. NOTICE also showed up in revision 7a11e25aacfa (0). NOTICE seems to be Apache-1.1 with word replacements. (not Apache-1.0) > My interpretation of the issue is that if there are two licenses on the > code, then as long as the necessary DFSG-rights are given, there is no > problem. I would argue that the Author's clear intention was to license this work under Apache-2.0. This is where the full license text is correctly copied. A LICENSE file is typically the authority to a project, so much so that many tools ignore a NOTICE file when checking licenses if a LICENSE file is present. Additionally, Apache-2.0 invalidates a contradicting license by paragraph 4(d). What's in NOTICE violates the license terms of what's in LICENSE. > Notice that upstream seems unreactive since years now, so even though > I'm also opening a ticket there [3], moving forward not expecting an > answer seems the most reasonable course of action. Considering the last commit was in 2012, a lack of response is not in any way surprising. You opened that ticket less than a day ago. > What do you think about the matter? I'd start by making an attempt to contact maxberger directly, and then definitely have some patience. They may be on vacation, experiencing health/family/existential problems, or prefer checking email infrequently. If you don't get a response, I would argue that the author's clear intent was to license the work under the Apache-2.0 license and believed the NOTICE file was meant for a more brief form of the file. I would make that argument based on the assumption that they didn't read the license, or the portion where it tells you what the brief form looks like. IANAL -- Michael Lustfield -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
