[Debian-med-packaging] Bug#1124959: Bug#1124959: includes source files with non-free license

[Étienne Mollier]

Hi gents,

Charles Plessy, on 2026-01-08:
> Le Wed, Jan 07, 2026 at 09:44:39PM +0100, Pierre Gruet a écrit :
>> c* permission notice appear in supporting documentation. The use   *
>> c* for commercial purposes is prohibited without permission.       *
> 
> Thanks Pierre, I have pinged the authors on GitLab; let's see if there is a
> quick reaction.

Dropping all affected files looks feasible at least in the
version 1.10.0.  I have work in progress in that regard.

>> Also I have some doubts about the plastimatch license itself, one reads:
>> 
>>                                                   You further agree to
>>    use, reproduce, make derivative works of, display and distribute
>>    the Software in compliance with all applicable governmental laws,
>>    regulations and orders, including without limitation those relating
>>    to export and import control.
> 
> This is surely the kind of license innovation we don't like but since it passed
> NEW screening I assume it is Free. 
> 
> This said export/import control related terms are definitely a good candidate
> for a FAQ entry once the new DFSG team is up and running.  Andreas, how about
> asking them to have a look at this license?

Unravelling the dfsg-faq[1], this is close to the following
question 12.p, yet subtly different:

>>> Q: Can I say "You must obey U.S. export laws"? 

>>> A: This is non-free because it imposes restrictions on
>>> people outside the US which they might otherwise not be
>>> subject to. To protect yourself while keeping the license
>>> free you can rephrase this as a warning instead of a
>>> condition: "Please be aware that this license does not
>>> release you from your obligation to follow the law. We note
>>> in particular the US Export laws which may impact what you
>>> are legally allowed to do with this software, especially
>>> with regard to redistribution."
>>> 
>>> A stronger way to phrase this is: It is not the job of a
>>> copyright license to reiterate what is or is not legal in a
>>> particular jurisdiction. The job of a copyright license is
>>> to grant permissions to do things that would otherwise be
>>> forbidden under copyright law.

My understanding, without being a lawyer, is that Plastimatch
license terms would be (borderline) dfsg compliant, because "all
applicable governmental laws, regulations and orders" are going
to apply anyways; this is a tautaulogy.  I don't believe
permissible actions would be any different without the sentence
in upstream license.  A wording closer to the suggestion of the
dfsg-faq might have been easier to parse, I agree.

[1]: https://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq

Have a nice day,  :)
-- 
  .''`.  Étienne Mollier <emollier at debian.org>
 : :' :  pgp: 8f91 b227 c7d6 f2b1 948c  8236 793c f67e 8f0d 11da
 `. `'   sent from my alarm clock
   `-
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/debian-med-packaging/attachments/20260221/b493a1be/attachment.sig>