Cactvs-license
Hello, I'd like to package CACTVS, a framework of chemical applications. (so far mostly a structure editor, but there aren't many decent of those around for Linux...) The license is clearly not DFSG-compliant, however, I'd like to know if I could even upload this to non-free: --- snip --- This selection of programs is provided as is without any expressed or implied warranties. While every effort has been taken to ensure proper operation of the programs, the author assumes no responsibility for errors or malfunctions, or for damages resulting from the use of the programs. The collection of programs is usable free of charge for any scientific, non-commercial or educational purpose, but it is not in the public domain. Commercial applications of any kind are not allowed without licensing. You may adapt the functionality of the program to your local needs, but you are forbidden to redistribute copies of the files comprising the software which were altered in any respect. If you add a valuable feature, or hunt down a bug, you are welcome to contact the author by email ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) and the fix or feature will be most certainly integrated into the one and only official release. Dynamically loadable modules of any kind, like I/O format extensions, property computation modules, data analysis tools, or GUI scripts, written independently by yourself, for example for the standard visualization programs of the CACTVS system, are exceptions to this policy. You are welcome to distribute these by any means. GUI scripts from the base distribution which you simply edited remain subject to the distribution limitations. The tools cannot be used without permission in writing to generate or process data which is redistributed for a fee. This includes the manipulation of input information for on-line databases with access restrictions or access fees or the postprocessing of output from these databases. Likewise, the preparation of data for in-house databases and datasets distributed as CDROM or any other digital media does require a permission if it is distributed outside your organisation and any fee is collected for its distribution. The tool set can be distributed as part of other non-commercial program packages, but only in its original, unadapted form. If anybody is interested in providing the tools as integrated part of another package, this must be negotiated. Various forms of commercial licenses are available. The software distributed in the standard downloadable package does not contain all available applications. --- snip --- 1. Commercial stuff is not allowed - I'd say this is the problem of the user to comply with? 2. We can't modify the files. As they are binary only, this won't be much of a trouble. But can we distribute them as .deb? Although the project seems to be mostly stalled, the author is responsive (although he didn't answer my questions above) thanks, Michael PS: please CC me, if possible.
Re: Cactvs-license
> 1. Commercial stuff is not allowed - I'd say this is the problem of the >user to comply with? Correct. I believe there are a number of programs in non-free that have similar restrictions. > 2. We can't modify the files. As they are binary only, this won't be >much of a trouble. But can we distribute them as .deb? I don't think so. Does the author just provide one big, fat, executable? It sounds like there are other parts with an assumed directory structure. That would prevent you, for example, from putting documentation in a separate place from the executables. This would violate Debian policy. Also, I would take the phrase "original, unadapted form" to mean the tar ball (or whatever), in which case even putting that in a deb would violate the license. However, you said that the author is resposive. At a minimum, I think that the paragraph > The tool set can be distributed as part of other non-commercial program > packages, but only in its original, unadapted form. If anybody is > interested in providing the tools as integrated part of another > package, this must be negotiated. has to go. I don't think that special permission for Debian will work. Also, the phrase > You may adapt the functionality of the program to your local needs, > but you are forbidden to redistribute copies of the files comprising > the software which were altered in any respect. If you add a > valuable feature, or hunt down a bug, you are welcome to contact the > author by email ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) and the fix or feature > will be most certainly integrated into the one and only official > release. is worrisome, since that means that any security problems or serious bugs will kick it out of Debian, even if the fix is trivial. This is even more pressing since you said that the project has mostly stalled. All in all, this is just a terrible license. Perhaps you could find out what he really wants, and suggest a suitable, already written license? If he wants to be a control-freak, then we probably can't help him. However, if he's just worried about people stealing his code, then the GPL should be good enough for him. However, he may have already considered and rejected the GPL, so be careful. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Cactvs-license
On Thu, Sep 13, 2001 at 04:39:43PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote: > However, you said that the author is resposive. At a minimum, I think > that the paragraph > > > The tool set can be distributed as part of other non-commercial program > > packages, but only in its original, unadapted form. If anybody is > > interested in providing the tools as integrated part of another > > package, this must be negotiated. > > has to go. I don't think that special permission for Debian will > work. A requirement for special permission for Debian is ok in non-free, if that special permission has been granted. > Also, the phrase > > > You may adapt the functionality of the program to your local needs, > > but you are forbidden to redistribute copies of the files comprising > > the software which were altered in any respect. If you add a > > valuable feature, or hunt down a bug, you are welcome to contact the > > author by email ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) and the fix or feature > > will be most certainly integrated into the one and only official > > release. > > is worrisome, since that means that any security problems or serious > bugs will kick it out of Debian, even if the fix is trivial. This is > even more pressing since you said that the project has mostly stalled. This means that if there's a security problem or a "damages the user's system" problem we'll have to replace the insecure package with an empty package with a note explaining the conflict introduced by the license. [The empty package obviously won't have the security problem, and obviously won't contain any material which we're not prohibitted from distributing.] All in all, this doesn't sound like a great situation, but if enough people value it, maybe it's worth putting some effort into it... -- Raul
