Re: [gNewSense-users] Possible problem with closed bug 123

[Martin List-Petersen]

Sam Geeraerts wrote:
> Paul O'Malley wrote:
> > Markus Laire wrote:
> > > Markus Laire wrote:
> > > > Brian said:
> > > > : One reading of this is: "Users may copy or modify Sun RPC without
> > > > : charge, but are not authorized to license or distribute it to anyone
> > > > : else except as part of a product or program developed by the user" -
> > > > : the second clause of the "or" can be ignored.
> > > >
> > > > IMO the meaning of the license is clearly "Users may copy or modify 
> > > > Sun RPC without charge, but are not authorized to license or 
> > > > distribute it to anyone else except as part of a product developed 
> > > > by the user or program developed by the user" (note the added text).
> > >
> > > After thinking this a bit more I'm not so sure anymore whether it is 
> > > meant to mean "except as part of a (product) or (program developed 
> > > by the user)" or "except as part of a (product or program) developed 
> > > by the user"
> > >
> > > In a case like this shouldn't gNS contact the copyright holder(s) 
> > > instead of deciding to interpret the license favorably for gNS?
> >
> > Markus,
> >
> > Your extract was not verbose enough to prove your case.
> > You should have started here:
> > ---
> > Upstream Author: Wietse Venema
> >
> > Copyright:
> >
> > Most of the files, fall under the following copyright, and are 
> > distributable
> > under the terms of the BSD license (/usr/share/common-licenses/BSD):
> >
> >  * Copyright (c) 1983,1991 The Regents of the University of California.
> >  * All rights reserved.
> >
> > Some of the RPC code, is copyrighted by Sun Microsystems, and is 
> > provided under the following terms:
> >
> > -----
> >
> > This implies that the code is part of a product which Wietse has 
> > licensed.
> >
> > Licence is thus free!
>
> That copyright summary was added by Debian. Looking at the original 
> source code [1] the only files that mention the (original) BSD license 
> are portmap.c and portmap.8. The former also contains the Sun RPC 
> restriction, as does from_local.c. The other files do not contain 
> license information, nor is there a COPYING file.
>
> If there were a COPYING file, then I think the code that originally 
> fell under the (non-free) Sun RPC restriction would be (freely) 
> re-licensed by the user-developer who put the code together and there 
> would be no problem.
>
> Right now, I think the only free code in there is portmap.c and 
> portmap.8.
>
> So I think the copyright holders should be asked:
> - what the license of every file is
> - if the Sun RPC restriction still applies to anyone who wants to 
> distribute the code (and maybe clarify what the restriction actually 
> means)
If Debian has added the copyright summary, then that has been done based 
on a request from the user-developer (Wietse). Again, in doubt as him 
before trying to non-free it here.

Based on the information available, Brians decision is clear.

Kind regards,
Martin List-Petersen

--
Communication is the beginning of understanding
  -- AT&T