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

[Stephan Lachnit]

Hi Thorsten,

On Sun, 9 Jan 2022, 02:30 Thorsten Alteholz, <debian at alteholz.de> wrote:

> 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.
>

I see your point now. Thanks for taking the time to explain this to me.

I will contact the Geant4 authors about this issue.

On Sun, 9 Jan 2022, 02:30 Thorsten Alteholz, <debian at alteholz.de> wrote:

> > 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.
>

A description of patch is not user documentation, IMHO at most developer
documentation, if the word "documentation" applies at all. Additionally a
patch is not part of the modified software itself . Again the sentence "If
that is where third-party acknowledgments normally appear, this
acknowledgment must be reproduced in the modified version of this software
itself" makes it quite clear how clause 2 is to be understood.


Thanks again for your time!

Regards,
Stephan Lachnit
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/debian-science-maintainers/attachments/20220111/844c6fb7/attachment-0001.htm>