Re: Bug#258104: libphp-jpgraph: new uptream version (1.13)
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 10:57:57AM +0200, Christian BAYLE wrote: > As far as I know QPL is considered an non DFSG compatible > > "Restrictions, such as giving the author your changes if they ask, are > not DFSG-free." > > found on debian-legal > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/04/msg00259.html > > Though this is considered as a free license by FSF not GPL Compatible > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.fr.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses > > I CC this to debian-legal, (please CC me, directly) to know if I can put > this QPL licensed code knowing this is php script > http://www.aditus.nu/jpgraph/index.php > http://www.trolltech.com/licenses/qpl.html > > > Christian Well, I'm not from debian-legal, but please have a look on ocaml, it's a QPL software, and is in the main archive ! and well, it's not the only one : grep -rl "THE Q PUBLIC LICENSE" */copyright cervisia/copyright kapptemplate/copyright kbabel/copyright kbugbuster/copyright kcachegrind/copyright kdesdk/copyright kdesdk-kfile-plugins/copyright kdesdk-misc/copyright kdesdk-scripts/copyright kompare/copyright kspy/copyright kuiviewer/copyright libcvsservice0/copyright libqt3c102-mt/copyright libqt3-headers/copyright libqt3-mt-dev/copyright ocaml/copyright poxml/copyright qt3-designer/copyright qt3-dev-tools/copyright qt3-doc/copyright umbrello/copyright -- Pierre Habouzit http://www.madism.org/ -==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==- gpg : 1024D/A1EE761C 6045 409E 5CB5 2CEA 3E70 F17E C41E 995C C98C 90BE spam: [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [PEAR-DEV] PHP License
Le Mer 24 Août 2005 06:25, Ian Eure a écrit : > I do think the license should be fixed (or a more appropriate > derivative created for PEAR packages), but I don't think the license > in any way prohibits Debian packaging of PEAR or PEAR packages; nor > has it stopped such packaging in the past. See: php-pear-log, php-db, > php-auth, php-net-socket, etc etc etc. just for the record, it's not because it has been done, that it has been done *right*. Though, I find your interpretation of the clause (6) a bit light. You would be correct if it was worded : 6. Redistributions of any form ***OF THE PHP SOURCES/SOFTWARE*** whatsoever must retain the following acknowledgment: "This product includes PHP, freely available from <http://www.php.net/>". but without the part in ***...***, semantically, "Redistributions of any form" refers to the package that is under that license, not only PHP. I mean your point is invalid, since an annotated version of that clause is : 6. Redistributions of any form whatsoever must retain the following acknowledgment: ... » If your redistribute the PEAR (or else) package released under » that license, you have to state that ... "This product includes PHP, freely available from <http://www.php.net/>". » ... this package include PHP (blah blah blah). Which would be » incorrect if PHP sources weren't bundled to the package. I assume » you should'nt sate sth wrong just for beeing license-clean ;) I understand *you* won't retain such a fallacious argument to harm debian, though, which is important is not only *how* an upstream understand/apply/... its own license, but what is written inside it, and what it means objectively. And I'm not comfortable with (6) because it misses the fact that clause 6 is *only* dedicated to the redistribution of PHP under any form (and not to the current package). -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpoBbK8ZvuHX.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#348728: ITP: php-net-imap -- PHP PEAR module implementing IMAP protocol
Le Mer 18 Janvier 2006 20:58, Steffen Joeris a écrit : > > You should be aware that per the current REJECT_FAQ [1] > > your package will be automatically rejected because it uses the PHP > > License. Several weeks ago I emailed the FTP Masters[2], requesting > > that they accept the PHP Licence for all PHP Group software, backed > > up by extensive debian-legal discussion. They were explicitely > > invited to either modify their rejection criteria, or continue the > > debian-legal debate, both of which they have failed to do. I am now > > re-extending that invitation. > > > > Charles > > > >1. http://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html > >2. http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00066.html > > Hi > > Thanks for the information. I haven't noticed it before because I saw > various packages in Debian using the PHP license. > I told my sponsor to wait with the upload. I will ask him for upload > when PHP license is DFSG compatible or tell him to drop it if the > project disagree with the PHP license. Nevertheless i think the > project should make a decision. Waiting for it now ... > > Greetings and thanks for info > Steffen the project decision is clear IMHO : read the php license, you'll see it can only apply to the main and official PHP distribution. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpFSGfAYL6Pj.pgp Description: PGP signature
PHP license...
Hi, I'm packaging a PHP C extension, that was licensed under the LGPL, but is now under the PHP license. it was unofficial, but is now listed on PECL[1] and the lead developper has an @php.net address, and is member of the PHP Group. That makes the product a product of the PHP Group. I've read the thread about PHP license 3.01 in february, and had the impression that the consensus was that that license is acceptable for things that come from the PHP Group. is that still the case, can I upload the new version ? thanks in advance. [1] http://pecl.php.net/package/json Please Cc: me on debian-legal, I'm not subscribed. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpx6XXqSSMTM.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PHP license...
Le Mer 12 Avril 2006 22:13, Francesco Poli a écrit : > On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 09:00:51 +0200 Pierre Habouzit wrote: > > I've read the thread about PHP license 3.01 in february, and had > > the impression that the consensus was that that license is > > acceptable for things that come from the PHP Group. is that still > > the case, can I upload the new version ? > > As you may have read in the thread you're referring to (I don't know > which of them, as there are quite several), I don't agree. > I believe that PHP license version 3.01 does not comply > with the DFSG, even when applied to PHP itself or to PHP Group > software. The problematic clause is #4. > > […] > > In particular, my analysis of the PHP License version 3.01 can be > found here: > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/11/msg00271.html > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/11/msg00272.html Point is, I'm not conviced at all that #4 makes php non free. It's an irritating clause, but it does not prevent me to exercice the 4 basic free software freedoms. It just says that you cannot use php in the *name* of the product, as it's a reserved token for products from the PHP group. but it explicitely allow you to say "libFoo" is a lib that does Foo for PHP, or to call your project "libFoo for PHP". PHP does not only refers to an language (like python, C, Ada does) but to the specific Zend implementation of that language. This clause may be called clumsy, but not non-free IMHO. > I would like to explicitly (re)stress that this analysis is my > opinion only and didn't gain wide consensus on debian-legal. > Nonetheless, I didn't get a satisfactory rebuttal. > Consequently, I believe this issue is still open and undecided. well, how could we have this decided once for all ? requiring a GR on that issue seems a bit exagerated ... -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpaprVHyrSgp.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
Le Dim 21 Mai 2006 23:04, Raphael Hertzog a écrit : > Fears are unfounded, we can at any time terminate the license by > removing java! just do it, shall we ? -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpbBQCmfwolr.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
Le Lun 22 Mai 2006 00:55, Steve Langasek a écrit : > On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 11:24:12PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > > Le dimanche 21 mai 2006 à 16:17 -0500, Raphael Hertzog a écrit : > > > Good, but you shouldn't decide what others have to do. Some > > > people are interested in java in non-free, it's not your job to > > > try to forbid them to work on that. > > > > Not if it hurts the project. And it does. > > How? I personally thinks it hurts our users, and as a secondary effect, us. Beeing distributable is a property that should not be depends upon the time, the color of your hair, or the phase of the moon. Java license (especially clause 4) makes the distribution of a specific version of java beeing revocable, which can hurts a lot of users that may then depends on it. A re-licensing e.g. would not be the same, because the last previous version that had a distributable license would still be allowed to stay in non-free until full deprecation or even for life. the java license is full of retro-active clauses, that can lead into the removal of *any* version of java that has ever been in debian. Even one that has been distributed to millions of users. *that* would hurt. another writing of the clause 4 that would be acceptable for debian is the following: » this version of java comes with that list of requirements your » kernel/OS/arch/... *must* support [the list]. If you don't or can't, » you are not allowed to ship that version of java. that would be acceptable for non-free, because if a version of java qualifies for a given stable release, it will for life. beeing distributable is not a property that is 50% true and need killing a cat to know if it's rather 1 or rather 0. for me, this issue *is* the real one. and I'd support any GR (or any kind of action) that would precise what we call "distributable" implies durability of that state. I just cannot imagine that we allow a package even into non-free if we are not sure it can stay here forever. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgp3Ut7o4m2LW.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
Le Lun 22 Mai 2006 01:46, Steve Langasek a écrit : > On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 01:06:42AM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > > I personally thinks it hurts our users, and as a secondary effect, > > us. Beeing distributable is a property that should not be depends > > upon the time, the color of your hair, or the phase of the moon. > > Java license (especially clause 4) makes the distribution of a > > specific version of java beeing revocable, which can hurts a lot of > > users that may then depends on it. A re-licensing e.g. would not be > > the same, because the last previous version that had a > > distributable license would still be allowed to stay in non-free > > until full deprecation or even for life. > These are fine reasons why Sun should be encouraged to make Java free > software, instead of merely making it redistributable; or why we > should educate users about the importance of Free Software and why > they should think twice before accepting non-free solutions. This > might even be an argument for Debian discontinuing non-free > altogether. > But I don't really see that they apply as reasons to keep Java out of > non-free. Non-free is, well, non-free: very little, if any, of the > stuff in there is distributed under terms that would prevent a > copyright holder from later forbidding us from distributing the > existing work, AFAIK, and there's no reason in general that we should > be *happy* with the licenses of any works in non-free (though some > individuals in the community may be). I understand your point, but given that make-jpkg (aka java-package) exists and works great (i've been a user of it since quite a lot of time, and that had never failed me), I don't see much an improvement over java-package. beeing in non-free versus make-jpkg is IMHO making the tacit promise that java will remain here forever (I mean in our archive, I really hope java won't stay in *non-free* forever, I'd be really happy to see it enter main). If it has to be removed from non-free at some point, because of Sun exercising one of their retroactive clause, then I think we have failed our users. we are *currently* allowed to redistribute java, I agree with that: yes, if we have any problem, removing java from the archive *is* a valid action, and saves us from any trouble (every clause is written under the form [ do $foo or don't ship / stop shipping java ]).. My concern is with the "currently". IMHO, *even* in non-free, packages should be distributable for the lifetime of one stable release (e.g. for something like 5 years -- it's an example). I know some packages are (or have been) in non-free because debian benefits of an exception to have the right to distribute those. I've always hopped those exceptions honoured that fact (meaning that a package that enters non-free will be able to remain here in a predictable manner for the lifetime of that stable release). If not, I really think we should re-evaluate some bits of non-free, because to me, it sounds like a lie. even if it's non-free and that our support is going to be harmed in many ways due to the non-freeness of the package, the two properties that non-free should ensure are: * the fact that we are allowed to distribute the packages ; * a minimal durability of that package in the archive. else, we are proposing random bits of shit, that any user is already able to install himself from non-official sources. I don't see any added value that we have without point 2. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpBCPyrilnX9.pgp Description: PGP signature
[OT] Re: Please fix broken MUAs, was: GFDL v2 draft 1 analysis [long]
On Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 03:53:25PM +, MJ Ray wrote: > Lionel Elie Mamane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Yeah, sorry about that; I try to remember to use "list-reply" instead > > of "group-reply" on Debian MLs, but I often forget. This matter would > > be so much simpler if everyone's MUA would support and set > > Mail-Followup-To. Alas, this seems not to be happening at any pace > > where it can happen in my lifetime. > > That's probably because Mail-Followup-To is not the solution. you're a bit tiredsome with that. List-Post does not helps you to specify that you want to be set as a Cc: or not when someones answers to a mail. the usual rule on lists I'm on, is that when M-F-T is set, it's what should be used. Though, when none is set, you should assume the guy who you are answering to is not subscribed, and politeness ask you to set the Cc: I know the rfc2369, and I can assure you no List-* header can offer an answer to the previous problem. And that's the sole purpose of the M-F-T header. Also note that the rfc ask to enable "reply to lists" functions, and not to force it, and mutt does that as it offers you group-reply (known as reply-to-all in other softwares) or list-reply. The point is Lionel did not used the correct one here. M-F-T is just a way to fix bad uses of group-replies where a list-reply should be used, and there is no harm in adding a harmless header that can help a lot of MUAs. or please strip your signature, it costs many more octets than a M-F-T. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgp8w2CBySBxv.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GFDL with no invariants/covers, is ok?
On Sun, Feb 25, 2007 at 08:09:05PM -0500, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote: > make package had stripped all of the documentation due to GFDL. remake's > author doesn't mind bending licensing for his own .texi file (used for > ..info etc) specific for debugging facilities of remake. He > suggested following terms (which btw were used in another package > shipped in debian): You could have googled a bit: http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001 -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpwyGbYko65i.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 07:27:36PM +0200, Michelle Konzack wrote: > Am 2007-05-22 13:30:24, schrieb Sam Hocevar: > > 3. Nexenta: Despite their incompatibility, Debian accepts both the > > CDDL and GPLv2 as valid free software licences and would welcome any > ^^ >Can this start a flame now? (I mean cdrtools => Jürg Schilling?) >Then the fork "cdrkit" was a shoot in the oven! CDDL is a valid free software license. It has just the tiny little problem that it's not compatible with the GPL, at least, it's Debian's position for now. There is no troll, only misunderstanding from your end :) -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpDiySwjKqNu.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#451647: debian/copyright and actual copyrights
On Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 07:01:05AM +, Jeff Licquia wrote: > severity 451647 serious > thanks > > Yaroslav Halchenko wrote: > >Today I've filed a bugreport http://bugs.debian.org/451647 against > >wacom-tools package. Its copyright file imho violates the policy (I > >think I can cite it here since it is quite "concise") > >,--- > >| This package was created by Ron Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on > >| Thu, 4 Nov 2004 16:06:55 -0800. > >| > >| Parts of it were downloaded from http://linuxwacom.sf.net > >| > >| Copyright: GPL > >| > >| Some files in the linuxwacom distribution are now covered by the LGPL, > >| the individual files are marked accordingly. > >| > >| A copy of the GPL and LGPL can be found in /usr/share/common-licenses > >| on Debian systems. > >`--- > This is rude at the very least; by implication, the only person worth > mentioning who's contributed anything to this package is Ron Lee. If > what I hear about "moral rights" outside the USA is true, it may even > rise to the level of illegality to incorrectly infer such a prominent > status for oneself and such a minor place for others. You are mixing things that aren't on the same level. The _packaging_ has been created by Ron Lee indeed, meaning that what is under debian/ is his. Nowhere it claims he wrote any of the package upstream. If you believe you read something like that, read again. And again, because you're wrong. OTOH this debian/copyright is clearly deficient in many ways, but stop accusing him of bad faith, you're just out of your mind. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpCecG2Urkbw.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#451647: debian/copyright and actual copyrights
On Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 05:39:06PM +, Ron wrote: > On Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 09:28:28AM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > > OTOH this debian/copyright is clearly deficient in many ways, but stop > > accusing him of bad faith, you're just out of your mind. > > Thanks Pierre, you've just saved us all from my response to jeff's > wild slander from the hip. > > There are two issues here, the important one being -policy compliance, > the other stylistic. Since the bug was raised to red-alert-panic severity > without pointing to a single clear policy violation, I'll ask again for > the sake of our new audience, before I summarily close it by way of reply: > > Can someone show me any single MUST in policy that is violated by this > debian/copyright file? Bonus points if you can get them all first time. yes it's a must. see http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2003/12/msg7.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/12/msg00194.html You have to list every copyright holder and copyright statements for any files. It's painful, but it's the rules. Though feel free to discuss the why and how on -devel@ :) -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpfR3X6W9G0a.pgp Description: PGP signature
