Follow-up Comment #3, task #16596 (group administration):
> We have updated the files in our tarball (in the simcore/, qsimphone/, build/ > and doc/ subdirectories, and at the top-level) with copyright and license > notices to hopefully be compliant with these GNU requirements. Thank you! Your package is quite large, and the licensing situation isn't very simple, so a more detailed discussion is needed. > For the patches/ subdirectory, added an explanation to patches/PATCHES.txt > that the copyright of the diff files belongs to the original copyright > holders. My idea of copyright assignment is different. I believe a copyright assignment is a legal paper where all affected persons and entities are named explicitly and unequivocally, and of course aware of the assignment. Generally, who are copyright holders of your package, and how do they co-ordinate their copyrights? Then, the diff files are text files, they should include copyright and license notices themselves. > To explain the copyright situation of non-text and automatically generated > files, added README.txt files to the following subdirectories: > qsimphone/icons, All files should be listed in README explicitly; if they aren't, it's too easy to get the things wrong when any new files are added. > qsimphone/flags, When files are in public domain, a brief note recording the authors, and anything else relevant is desirable, https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/Non_002dFSF_002dCopyrighted-Package.html > qsimphone/resources countries.txt and creative-commons.txt are text files; they should include legal notices themselves. > and build/config-win32. Some of these files do contain copyright and license notices, and I don't think I see any good reason for the rest to not contain them. > cares/: MIT license There is no 'MIT' license: MIT has released software under various licenses. Could you use the names from https://www.gnu.org/license/license-list.html? [reordered] > miniupnpc/: BSD license ... > speex/, speexdsp/: BSD-style license Likewise, there is no "BSD" license (and of course "BSD-style license" is a too vague term for our purposes). There are several free software licenses with "BSD" in their name; some of them are GPL-compatible, other are not. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/bsd.html > efence/: GPL2 > Note this is a windows port of a GNU library. It is not part of > Simphone by > default, neither at compile time nor at any other time. Still it sits in the > source code archive so that developers can optionally enable memory debugging > on windows just as they already can on GNU/Linux. Irrespectively of other possible considerations: if you include it into your tarball, you effectively make it a part of your package, and in any case, you are responsible for it. At the extreme: we don't want Savannah to distribute tarballs including proprietary software no matter how it's referred to, do we? So that part is GPLv2-only. Savannah requirement is, basically, compatibility with GPLv3 and all later versions. > qsimphone/resources/ip*.bin: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International > License > https://db-ip.com/db/lite.php This needs further discussion: is CC BY 4.0 LGPL-compatible? > qtbase/: LGPL 2.1 > https://www.qt.io/faq/tag/qt-open-source-licensing > > Note Qt is not part of the source tree, but is part of compiled Simphone > binaries. If it's part of compiled binaries, then it makes a combined work with Simphone. How that affects Simphone licensing depends on whether the work is a library or not---provided Qt is LGPLv2.1; however, the above URL mentions LGPLv2.1, LGPLv3, and GPLv3 (let alone their 'commercial' license). Could you comment on this? > udev/libudev/: LGPL 2.1 > https://github.com/mcatalancid/libudev/blob/1.8.2/src/COPYING > > Note this is not the official link. The latest udev/libudev has been > integrated into systemd. But the version in our source tree has a GPL2 udev > and an LGPL libudev inside (as the above link also shows), whereas only > libudev is used by Simphone; the rest of the top-level udev code is there only > to provide the original source structure for reference. If this would be a > problem, we could delete everything except for udev/libudev. Libudev is needed > for audio device hotplug detection under GNU/Linux. The note on efence/ applies to the GPLv2-only part; the LGPLv2.1 includes a permission for relicensing under the GPLv2+, so it's compatible with Savannah hosting requirements. > build/rlink/: RCSL/RPSL/GPL2 The combination isn't trivial, and to tell the truth, I haven't tried to analize it; could you explain how this licensing may be compatible with GPLv3+? Now, it looks like by dependencies you mean what they call 'external libraries' in the GNU Project: a module borrowed from a different package and added to the tarball. For our purposes, dependencies mean software the package uses, including the translators for the source code, the libraries the program links to and so on. Has Simphone other such dependencies? _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: <https://savannah.gnu.org/task/?16596> _______________________________________________ Message sent via Savannah https://savannah.gnu.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
