geant4-data_11.0.0+ds-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

[Stephan Lachnit]

Hi Thorsten,

On Sat, Jan 8, 2022 at 1:55 PM Thorsten Alteholz <debian at alteholz.de> wrote:
>
> On 08.01.22 09:46, Stephan Lachnit wrote:
> >
> > If I modify and publish GPL licensed software, I also need to license
> > these changes under the GPL.
>
> no, you can publish your patch under any license you want. If you want
> others to use your patch together with the GPL software, you should
> choose a license that is compatible with GPL. You do not need to choose
> GPL, but you can use for example the Expat license. After applying your
> patch the combined work is available under the GPL, yet your patch taken
> on its own is still licensed under your choosen license.

Thanks for the clarification with the GPL. I'm still not entirely
convinced that the Geant4 Software License (G4SL) is not DFSG
compliant though.

Let's just quickly ignore the separate user agreement thing and read
G4SL #4 again:
"You are under no obligation to provide anyone with any modifications
of this software that you may develop, including but not limited to
bug fixes, patches, upgrades or other enhancements or derivatives of
the features, functionality or performance of this software. If you
publish or distribute your modifications you are deemed to have
granted all Members and all Copyright Holders of the Geant4
Collaboration a license to your modifications, including modifications
protected by any patent owned by you, under the conditions of this
license."

So I can:
a) modify the code, and
b) license my patches in any way I want.
In case I publish my modifications I must:
c) allow the [Copyright Holders of Geant4] to license my patch also
under the G4SL.

>From DFSG #3:
"The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must
allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of
the original software."

I don't see that the DFSG requires a license to allow you to
distribute modifications under a different license. I read "must allow
[modifications] to be distributed under the same [license]" as "must
*at least* allow modifications to be distributed under the same
license".

While c) is different to the GPL copyleft clause, I feel the spirit
and effective end result is the same.


> > If I read it right, the license is even less restrictive than the GPL
> > - I can publish patches under any license I want, I just have to also
> > license it under the Geant4 license to the copyright holders of Geant4.
>
> In this case and myself not being a member of the Geant4 collaboration,
> I require that my patch is distributed by the Geant4 collaboration with
> a notice that my patch is developed by members of the Geant4
> collaboration (clause 2). This is not true and if I don't want to be
> associated with the Geant4 collaboration I am hindered to distribute my
> patch. I don't think this is compatible with DFSG.
> As you wrote this license might work in a limited user group, but I
> don't think it is suitable for a distribution by Debian.

I don't think this is entirely correct either - clause 2 reads:
> 2. The user documentation, if any, included with a redistribution, must include the following notice:
> "This product includes software developed by Members of the Geant4 Collaboration ( http://cern.ch/geant4 )."

Two observations:
a) The clause applies to the user documentation, but not the software
itself. It read it as "if any user documentation is included with a
redistribution, it must include the following notice", i.e. if no user
documentation is shipped, there is no need to add that sentence. So no
need to add to your patch that it was developed by the Geant4
collaboration.
b) Also, the statement notes "This product includes software developed
by [...]", note the *includes*. This is simply a state of fact and
makes no assumptions about all the copyright that applies to the
software. I don't see how this is different from requiring to add
"this includes software XXX under license YYY copyright ZZZ", like
most other licenses do.

Also read the sentence below, which confirms this:
> If that is where third-party acknowledgments normally appear, this acknowledgment must be reproduced in the modified version of this software itself.

> > Again super weird, but I don't see how this is not DSFG compliant. I'm
> > not a lawyer though, so if you still disagree please let me know if
> > the license would allow an upload to non-free.
>
> Yes, everbody is allowed to distribute the code, but according to clause
> 3 you need to change the name of the software in case you add any patches.

Hm. I guess here pops the "what does modified mean" question up again
(greeting from d-p). I don't think distributing a binary with a tiny
fix is a "modified form", but I can see how lawyers may see that
differently.


FYI: I'm also not a big fan of the license, don't get me wrong.

Regards,
Stephan

On Sat, Jan 8, 2022 at 1:55 PM Thorsten Alteholz <debian at alteholz.de> wrote:
>
> Hi Stephan,
>
>
> On 08.01.22 09:46, Stephan Lachnit wrote:
> >
> > From 4.:
> > > [...] However, if you publish or distribute your modifications
> > without contemporaneously requiring users to enter into a separate
> > written license agreement, then you are deemed to have granted all
> > Members and all Copyright Holders of the Geant4 Collaboration a
> > license to your modifications [...]
> >
> > If I modify and publish GPL licensed software, I also need to license
> > these changes under the GPL.
>
> no, you can publish your patch under any license you want. If you want
> others to use your patch together with the GPL software, you should
> choose a license that is compatible with GPL. You do not need to choose
> GPL, but you can use for example the Expat license. After applying your
> patch the combined work is available under the GPL, yet your patch taken
> on its own is still licensed under your choosen license.
>
> > If I read it right, the license is even less restrictive than the GPL
> > - I can publish patches under any license I want, I just have to also
> > license it under the Geant4 license to the copyright holders of Geant4.
>
> In this case and myself not being a member of the Geant4 collaboration,
> I require that my patch is distributed by the Geant4 collaboration with
> a notice that my patch is developed by members of the Geant4
> collaboration (clause 2). This is not true and if I don't want to be
> associated with the Geant4 collaboration I am hindered to distribute my
> patch. I don't think this is compatible with DFSG.
> As you wrote this license might work in a limited user group, but I
> don't think it is suitable for a distribution by Debian.
>
> >
> > Again super weird, but I don't see how this is not DSFG compliant. I'm
> > not a lawyer though, so if you still disagree please let me know if
> > the license would allow an upload to non-free.
>
> Yes, everbody is allowed to distribute the code, but according to clause
> 3 you need to change the name of the software in case you add any patches.
>
>    Thorsten
>
>