</div></div></div></div></div>
Hello legal,
So I stumbled upon this rather interesting case of a software licensed by GPL2 but with an extra "clause" to it:
"
# If you enclose this script or parts of it in your software, it has to
# be accompanied by the same license (see link) and the place where to get
# the recent version of this program. Do not violate the license and if
# you do not agree to all of these terms, do not use it in the first
place.
"
https://github.com/drwetter/testssl.sh/blob/3b89dc6b0a41299fbf462789998e4c103f4f0210/testssl.sh#L19-L22
The release notes for 3.0. r5 also mentions:
"
This program is licensed under GPL-2. Please note also that if you're
using the program for a paid or free public service you need mention where you got this program from.
"
It seems that the author is trying to prevent people from setting up
webpages using this
software as a backend without crediting it. It seems like a reasonable
think to ask for.
My question is regarding DFSG compliance around this, I believe there is nothing wrong with
it, but the fact that upstream expose is as GPL-2 seems a little
misleading, as it's not plain GPL-2 and I think we should change something
in d/copyright to address this.
Are you aware of other software that are in a similar situation? I would
like to see what
d/copyright looks like. For this case the package was accepted by
ftp-master with a
d/copyright that states it as GPL-2.
Regards,
--
Samuel Henrique <samueloph>
<br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 6:36 PM Samuel Henrique <<a href="mailto:samueloph@debian.org">samueloph@debian.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote"style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>Hello legal,<br><br></div><div>So I stumbled upon this rather interesting case of a software licensed by</div><div>GPL2 but with an extra "
<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><span><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><span style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><span style="color:rgb(102,102,102)">Samuel Henrique <samueloph></span></span></div></div></div></div></</blockquote></div>
</div></span></div></div></div></div></div></div>
Il 13/11/19 01:03, Daniel Hakimi ha scritto:
But the text is informal and the party seems to not really understand
the license to begin with (again, he's talking about "use," that's not really even relevant to copyright law), so he might not really mean anything by it. I would not assume ill intent. It might be worthwhile to informally reach out to this community and help develop language that
just clarifies what the GPL already says, instead of conflicting with
it. The community might appreciate that. Worst case, they get angry and defensive, and attempt to move to a different (presumably proprietary) license, in which case, you learned the easy way that they don't play
nice. Don't learn the hard way.
The second clause the original email mentions seems to be a request in
the direction of the AGPL license. If they really want to impose code publication when the software is used to offer a remote service, maybe
they should consider AGPL instead of home-made notices. But maybe they
are not aware of it. If they opt for this way, I don't think that AGPL
has DFSG problems.
Giovanni.
--
Giovanni Mascellani <g.mascellani@gmail.com>
Postdoc researcher - Université Libre de Bruxelles
But even the AGPL does not restrict *use*.[...]
On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 08:00:04 -0500 Daniel Hakimi wrote:
But even the AGPL does not restrict *use*.[...]
I personally think the GNU AfferoGPL v3 *does* restrict use.
That's one of the main [reasons] why I think the AfferoGPL does *not*
meet the DFSG. The Debian FTP Masters don't agree with me,
unfortunately, but I still believe AfferoGPL-licensed works should not
have entered (or continue entering) Debian main...
[reasons]: <https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/11/msg00233.html>
--
http://www.inventati.org/frx/
There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! ..................................................... Francesco Poli .
GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
<div dir="auto">The debate over whether the limitations on using AGPL or SSPL software in a SaaS product in certain ways without making your own source available meet various free software definitions is not really relevant to the discussion of thisparticular text.</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Nov 13, 2019, 17:11 Francesco Poli <<a href="mailto:invernomuto@paranoici.org">invernomuto@paranoici.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="
Hello legal,
So I stumbled upon this rather interesting case of a software licensed by GPL2 but with an extra "clause" to it:
"
# If you enclose this script or parts of it in your software, it has to
# be accompanied by the same license (see link) and the place where to get
# the recent version of this program. Do not violate the license and if
# you do not agree to all of these terms, do not use it in the first place.
" https://github.com/drwetter/testssl.sh/blob/3b89dc6b0a41299fbf462789998e4c103f4f0210/testssl.sh#L19-L22
(...)
My question is regarding DFSG compliance around this, I believe there is nothing wrong with
it, but the fact that upstream expose is as GPL-2 seems a little
misleading, as it's not plain GPL-2 and I think we should change something
in d/copyright to address this.
I'm leaving aside the question that has been picked up, regarding
whether this can be made under the GPLv2, or whether this is a
"requirement" or a "polite request"...
The requirement itself seems very similar to the "advertising clause"
in the four-clause BSD license:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/05/msg00753.html
https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/04/msg00325.html
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/bsd.html
At that point, 4-clause BSD licenses were judged non-DFSG-free.
The release notes for 3.0. r5 also mentions:
This program is licensed under GPL-2. Please note also that if
you're using the program for a paid or free public service you need
mention where you got this program from.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 285 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 72:04:11 |
Calls: | 6,489 |
Calls today: | 2 |
Files: | 12,096 |
Messages: | 5,275,729 |