vmtk_1.5.0~git20260410.ba7cf0f+dfsg1-1_uploadNEW.changes REJECTED

[Andrew McMillan]

Hi Francesco,

On re-examination, I realise that the reason behind non-free is actually the license that is called "BSD-style-1.0", which is actually officially tracked as "3D-Slicer-1.0" by SPDX (and ideally you should switch to that naming in debian/copyright.


Specific issues are:

1. Export Controls and Compliance with Laws (Part B, Section 4 & 7)
The Clause: Part B, Section 4 states, "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." Furthermore, Part B, Section 7 states that any use not in accordance with the license "shall automatically revoke all rights granted to you."

DFSG Issue: Debian historically rejects licenses that condition the copyright grant on compliance with laws (especially export controls). By tying the copyright license to statutory laws, it turns a local legal violation (like exporting to a sanctioned country) into a copyright infringement. This is typically viewed as a violation of DFSG #1 (Free Redistribution) and DFSG #6 (No Discrimination Against Persons or Fields of Endeavor), as it restricts who can receive the software based on jurisdictional politics rather than copyright law.

See (e.g.) https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2015/11/msg00026.html which discusses the CISST license, based upon this license.



2. The Anti-Copyleft Contribution Agreement (Part A, Section 6)
The Clause: Part A, Section 6 requires that you warrant your contribution "DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY CODE THAT REQURES OR PRESCRIBES AN 'OPEN SOURCE LICENSE' FOR DERIVATIVE WORKS (by way of non-limiting example, the GNU General Public License...)."

DFSG Issue: If Part A is strictly a Contributor License Agreement (CLA) required only if you actively submit code back upstream to Brigham, it does not violate the DFSG (Debian users aren't forced to push code upstream). However, the license bundles this CLA directly into the distribution terms. If Debian or a downstream user modifying the code is legally construed as making a "Contribution," this clause violates DFSG #9 (License Must Not Contaminate Other Software) and DFSG #3 (Derived Works) because it outright bans the use of copyleft licenses (like the GPL) in derivative works.


So: sorry I missed this before when I looked in more detail into the other wierd variant license while missing all of this :-(

I think I got confused between the BSD-3-clause, BSD-3-style and VTK licenses (all of which are perfectly fine and reasonable BSD-3-clause equivalent) and missed all the special nutty weirdness in this one at the time.


Thanks,

Further information may be found at:
   https://dfsg-new-queue.debian.org/reviews/vmtk

Regards, Andrew McMillan
Member of the DFSG, Licensing & New Packages Team



===

Please feel free to respond to this email if you don't understand why
your files were rejected, or if you upload new files which address our
concerns.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 228 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/debian-science-maintainers/attachments/20260428/16d1eeb3/attachment-0001.sig>