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

[Thorsten Alteholz]

Hi Stephan,

On Sat, 8 Jan 2022, Stephan Lachnit wrote:
> 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.

Related to c), maybe it is a language thing, but I don't allow others to 
publish my patch but I am forced to publish my patch under a second 
license, namely G4SL, to the [Copyright Holders of Geant4].
If I don't like that license and would rather use only a more open 
license, I am not allowed to do this as I can not fulfill the user 
agreement thing. From my point of view this is some kind of 
discrimination or restriction.

> 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.

Shouldn't any patch be accompanied by a description about its purpose? 
Wouldn't you say that this is documentaion?

> 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.

But my patch does only contain software developed by myself. It doesn't 
feel right being forced to mention that others developed it.

> 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.

This is another reason to avoid that license. But you are right, there 
exist suprising court decisions related to modifications.

   Thorsten