Hi,

some times, we (the AlekSIS team) stumble upon upstream maintainers
who consider it funny to add amendments to licenses, or make up fun
licenses on their own. Here are two examples:

https://github.com/codeedu/select2-materialize

This project is MIT-licensed, but has a note saying:

"BUT if you become a millionaire using this code, please bought
me a new brand luxury sailboat."

Probably meant as a joke, a lawyer might see that
differently. Actually, I am somewhat curious if by adding this package
to Debian, and with that forcing it into Ubuntu, we could see Mark
Shuttleworth buy a luxury sailboat for that guy i nexchange for their
30 lines of CSS ;).

https://github.com/iconify/collections-json/issues/12

Not pointing directly to the project in question, but to this
elaborate thread on the issue.

License here: https://icons8.com/good-boy-license

"Please do whatever your mom would approve of. No tattoos,
No touching food with unwashed hands, No exchanging for drugs"

Taken literally, that is a restriction on use, and as such non-free.


Now, it seems that the intention of these upstreams is not to really
prohibit use. In fact, for the second example, upstream provided a
nexpress statement that they dual-license under MIT license as
well. In the first case, I could not successfully contact the authors
yet.

What does debian-legal say? Could I package the first example for
Debian, and trust that the amendment is a joke?

Thanks,
Nik

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iKcEABYKAE8WIQSk6zxRYJYchegBkTEK5VTlRg4b3QUCYV9tJzEaaHR0cHM6Ly93 d3cuZG9taW5pay1nZW9yZ2UuZGUvZ3BnLXBvbGljeS50eHQuYXNjAAoJEArlVOVG DhvdfbgBAIdJ8P5SkQFHQMR//tjQgmjkbsGDg+29QbxutPAhf9DUAQCrDx2lFP1T 8KfiX+MzAqsKFV3G38FsgPJcNqfuDwuqBQ==
=toiR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 7 Oct 2021 23:56:57 +0200 Dominik George wrote:

Hi,

Hello!

some times, we (the AlekSIS team) stumble upon upstream maintainers
who consider it funny to add amendments to licenses, or make up fun
licenses on their own.

Personally, I think licenses and jokes are best left distinct.
Inserting the latter into the former is often a bad idea...

[...]

"BUT if you become a millionaire using this code, please bought
me a new brand luxury sailboat."

[...]

"Please do whatever your mom would approve of. No tattoos,
No touching food with unwashed hands, No exchanging for drugs"

[...]

However, these two examples look more like kind requests, rather than
legally binding requirements.

The first one says "please bought me" [I think it should be "please buy
me"]: you are not forced to do so.
The second starts with "Please do". I think the continuation "No ...
No ... No ..." is just an enumeration of what your mom would disapprove
of.

What do other debian-legal participants think?


--
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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEygERR5zS79/7gjklPhwn4R9pv/4FAmFfeRwACgkQPhwn4R9p v/5+hg/9Hf8lpRQ8m2q8bu0VQ2oh6X8T+qdvDWaa5zTOrYFCfJQZerMvJ3dH+Bex 3khVTxvV2y6PwSjgEK5YDfLTlaM8GQzLt1cmTfnrdn3VxHRCsHfWH4W2YCBmpNP3 L0ytEuE6eogj2IeBgMFnTM/XWO64doF0L+MqiQMbiFTuaQ++bC4CPVoXibO8xtfb raNJaatAgtj/AkaE6CCzStohAfBAroB5iCoU90+0jVVyr5CbkblNAC31pAYZPgvb rBYBcI6KhpQb1PeihUlvBX6cSyMwkQH7n6v+/t1pwxKCmpEMio78JIH9yAqJYh2l li2OTzBvUPaVETW2qphwRH8f0jKiMlXXCr/BkF4R0tMtEsAoBmfA/bOZ9PAHBBJ+ bXGX93JQ0mPGaxhOTTfU8OoH56j2u7n3PcpMobc/M49BUScl0x4B8qWZU0dFPW9r Ff1SxmePAqxpfR589v1pKRFw/K9oWoiCDYy/wv7OBldcQ55iqnfMGuciW5C5jHbN I56PCqznxwdBHFMQixzXsZ9boLnZPM8IJdAmojeYNNKAyAI+PV4MbrUhE3zsJ+ZE DI3TbDQE4ynXmeru0gT/lAW6HT7I5FecZmbxDb0/kKYDiYFbAAkx+qk4AmpxjUL0 D8w9YDQ2omxZ5AXOPYOgeGmbk7WitJqb

Hi Nik,

JSON has a license with similar problems. It has the addendum

The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil.

Debian takes the author at their word, and so it goes into non-free.

https://wiki.debian.org/qa.debian.org/jsonevil

I think that would have to be the case here as well.

Cheers,
Walter Landry

Dominik George writes:

Hi,

some times, we (the AlekSIS team) stumble upon upstream maintainers
who consider it funny to add amendments to licenses, or make up fun
licenses on their own. Here are two examples:

https://github.com/codeedu/select2-materialize

This project is MIT-licensed, but has a note saying:

"BUT if you become a millionaire using this code, please bought
me a new brand luxury sailboat."

Probably meant as a joke, a lawyer might see that
differently. Actually, I am somewhat curious if by adding this package
to Debian, and with that forcing it into Ubuntu, we could see Mark Shuttleworth buy a luxury sailboat for that guy i nexchange for their
30 lines of CSS ;).

https://github.com/iconify/collections-json/issues/12

Not pointing directly to the project in question, but to this
elaborate thread on the issue.

License here: https://icons8.com/good-boy-license

"Please do whatever your mom would approve of. No tattoos,
No touching food with unwashed hands, No exchanging for drugs"

Taken literally, that is a restriction on use, and as such non-free.

Now, it seems that the intention of these upstreams is not to really
prohibit use. In fact, for the second example, upstream provided a
nexpress statement that they dual-license under MIT license as
well. In the first case, I could not successfully contact the authors
yet.

What does debian-legal say? Could I package the first example for
Debian, and trust that the amendment is a joke?

Thanks,
Nik

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 10:48 PM Francesco Poli wrote:

What do other debian-legal participants think?

While they are fairly obviously worded in plain English like an
optional request, since they are part of a legal document, they are
supposed to use legal language, and IANAL, so I don't know how a
lawyer or the courts would interpret them. As such they are ambiguous
to me, and I would personally avoid relying on legal ambiguity.

--
bye,
pabs

https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 2021-10-07 at 23:56 +0200, Dominik George wrote:

What does debian-legal say? Could I package the first example for
Debian, and trust that the amendment is a joke?

This project is MIT-licensed, but has a note saying:
"BUT if you become a millionaire using this code, please bought
me a new brand luxury sailboat."

It is not a requirement that you buy the author a sailboat, only a
request, so in my opinion the license is free and I see no problem with packaging the software for Debian.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iIgEABYIADAWIQT287WtmxUhmhucNnhyvHFIwKstpwUCYV+IbRIcanNjb3R0QHBv c3Rlby5uZXQACgkQcrxxSMCrLaccHgD+NxopeGDMVtxk4tH20aF69tbqOYc3TKxf g9j8o4Dt2LsA/jFrCWzmEoK7s3c0h7/SC8e37TDJ1hq1Uo2dhfFooZMB
=Y0to
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Am Donnerstag, dem 07.10.2021 um 15:35 -0700 schrieb Walter Landry:

JSON has a license with similar problems.  It has the addendum

  The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil.

Well, the word "shall" can implicate "may", "will", or "must" and has therefor legal implications (similar in German law, where the translation "soll" can have serious legal implications). But I think this needs to be separated from the cases brought up in this thread: These are requests which I believe are not legally binding. Still they might cause legal trouble if the authors later claim that their request was meant as an obligation. I'd expect the first one ("BUT ..." - a clear exception) to be more troublesome than the latter ("Please do..."). In the latter case one could ask the authors if it is ok to ship the copy without this sentence.

Regards, Daniel
--
Regards,
Daniel Leidert <dleidert@debian.org> | https://www.wgdd.de/
GPG-Key RSA4096 / BEED4DED5544A4C03E283DC74BCD0567C296D05D
GPG-Key ED25519 / BD3C132D8B3805D1808123AB7ACE00941E338C78

https://www.fiverr.com/dleidert
https://www.patreon.com/join/dleidert

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEvu1N7VVEpMA+KD3HS80FZ8KW0F0FAmGDtGkACgkQS80FZ8KW 0F1vHw/9HTrhc/Pm7q9Xd5Qx+e+uSSLxLM+7UrtD/8fIR1dZUb2hSwgYKlvk/zgR s0M4FEFXLM8wqsixXxUCGyjTPyBZIGCaSl8oi9NUXK8PUMP0/XxuNog+GWZdObvm +aRB6aH3+Rw6LdOVGS4qAlvxxpHM04lPt217dJxkuAxsYxWhyLgFCgO/AUA/L8OT ZIMVtMT5WsL4I6NYUEtnL9Nr7CzrMVQqujs0RKKDyslMGGCwoPSqn7bgcD0APBgm Vh7ZRauLRBN8bLqm3WloxvRJ+5KltqC5LhC54RQvCsXxsaJro6sWE631xCnrLbV+ /txDFGFlrvijnUVKdvJOtYjOGM2z5NBDFyNtA3EDVqGJXblhOkhdRKs+fd347jl4 2rq/+TFsLs8NeOJzdueAz2Bc0Db0YF7Zw9CVs8Qqn4qqZ5A5BFCxT5tLN7QPQWzK kScB+c/6/mSVMuVmVHFQXmFYf37y3bZzrWzrdUvuV9VdL0yMFP6gsjKLGczixBEI TTVFHBFy8TGFC2q064lZZbOBN/N4b9Yv4WhXwEjTCw5VYagJecqnq+/B1GS/8HjG KYWRTPHiqA19VB+PItVTp3yltao5P9NiyjJfPPvd0Wf/GkXB59UbGmOLKDA

CgoK5YKz6IeqIGlQaG9uZSDniYjnmoQgWWFob2/lpYfmkanpm7vlrZDkv6HnrrEK
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"><head><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml><o:OfficeDocumentSettings><o:AllowPNG/><o:PixelsPerInch>96</o:PixelsPerInch></o:
OfficeDocumentSettings></xml><![endif]--></head><body>
<br><br><br><a href="https://overview.mail.yahoo.com/?.src=iOS">傳自 iPhone 版的 Yahoo奇摩電子信箱</a><br>
</body></html>

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)