Bug#876733: Licensing of jeuclid

[Michael Lustfield]

On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 15:55:40 +0100
Julien Puydt <julien.puydt at laposte.net> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> according to bug #876733, there is a licensing problem with jeuclid :
> - the LICENSE.txt file [1] says Apache 2.0 ;

LICENSE.txt showed up in revision b9d5f518ae61 (61) as a rename of LICENSE.
LICENSE showed up in revision 7a11e25aacfa (0) during a CVS import.

support/LICENSE.txt shows up in revision 472677a11fef (683).. and is Apache-2.0.

> - the NOTICE file [2] looks like an Apache 1.0.

NOTICE also showed up in revision 7a11e25aacfa (0).

NOTICE seems to be Apache-1.1 with word replacements. (not Apache-1.0)

> My interpretation of the issue is that if there are two licenses on the
> code, then as long as the necessary DFSG-rights are given, there is no
> problem.

I would argue that the Author's clear intention was to license this work under
Apache-2.0. This is where the full license text is correctly copied. A LICENSE
file is typically the authority to a project, so much so that many tools ignore
a NOTICE file when checking licenses if a LICENSE file is present.

Additionally, Apache-2.0 invalidates a contradicting license by paragraph 4(d).
What's in NOTICE violates the license terms of what's in LICENSE.

> Notice that upstream seems unreactive since years now, so even though
> I'm also opening a ticket there [3], moving forward not expecting an
> answer seems the most reasonable course of action.

Considering the last commit was in 2012, a lack of response is not in any way
surprising. You opened that ticket less than a day ago.

> What do you think about the matter?

I'd start by making an attempt to contact maxberger directly, and then
definitely have some patience. They may be on vacation, experiencing
health/family/existential problems, or prefer checking email infrequently.

If you don't get a response, I would argue that the author's clear intent was
to license the work under the Apache-2.0 license and believed the NOTICE file
was meant for a more brief form of the file. I would make that argument based
on the assumption that they didn't read the license, or the portion where it
tells you what the brief form looks like.

IANAL
-- 
Michael Lustfield