dhewm3_0+git20150226+dfsg-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

[Paul Tagliamonte]

After re-reading the sections involved - everything's fine with what
they're doing with the GPL. I'll re-process.

Cheers,
  Paul

On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 3:31 PM, Tobias Frost <tobi at debian.org> wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> I'm resending this, not sure if you received the first mail, as it was
> going to the ftpmaster adresss.
>
> Looking forward for your response.
>
> --
> tobi
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> thanks for taking a look at dhewm3, even it is not the desired result ;
> -)
>
> However, I disagree with the verdict; I analyzed exactly your concerns
> when I was packaging the engine and I think idsofts lawyer did nothing
> wrong.
>
> Am Freitag, den 24.07.2015, 16:00 +0000 schrieb Paul Richards
> Tagliamonte:
>> Howdy maintainer,
>>
>> GPL-3-with-idsoft-restrictions isn't distributable. Well, it may be,
>> but it'll result
>> in idsoft getting pissed off and suing someone.
>>
>> The GPLv3 clearly states:
>>
>>       You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise
>> of the> > rights granted or affirmed under this License.
>
> Yes, this is in the GPL V3 in §10.
> However, §7, "Addtional Terms" has an exception to this: (I'll quote
> only the important sections here):
>
>   7. Additional Terms.
>   (...)
>   Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, for material you
>   add to a covered work, you may (if authorized by the copyright
>   holders of that material) supplement the terms of this License with
>   terms:
>
>     a) Disclaiming warranty or limiting liability differently from the
>     terms of sections 15 and 16 of this License; or
>     b) Requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal notices or
>     author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal
>     Notices displayed by works containing it; or
>     c) Prohibiting misrepresentation of the origin of that material,
>     or requiring that modified versions of such material be marked in
>     reasonable ways as different from the original version; or
>     d) Limiting the use for publicity purposes of names of licensors or
>     authors of the material; or
>     e) Declining to grant rights under trademark law for use of some
>     trade names, trademarks, or service marks; or
>     f) Requiring indemnification of licensors and authors of that
>     material by anyone who conveys the material (or modified versions
>     of it) with contractual assumptions of liability to the recipient,
>     for any liability that these contractual assumptions directly
>     impose on those licensors and authors.
>
>   All other non-permissive additional terms are considered “further
>   restrictions” within the meaning of section 10.
>
> The last quoted sentence makes it clear that other changes except the
> ones from the list in §7 are "further restrictions" and implicitly says
> "those in the list are not". For now a) is the important one.
>
> idsoft utilizes this exceptions and overrides §15 and §16 with their
> own versions, but IMHO above shows that they are free to do that.
>
> There is also nothing in that point a) that disallow to say "I
> completely manage §15 and §16 myself, thus the original ones are void",
> so saying "Replacement of Section 15.  Section 15 of the GPL shall be
> deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:" and
> accordingly "2. Replacement of Section 16.  Section 16 of the GPL shall
> be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:"
> is OK too.
>
> Looking at idsofts §15, this is a just a rephrased version of the GPL
> 15, with nothing special in it. [1]
>
> §16 idsoft is also not really fancy rewrite of GPL §16. [2]
>
> There is also a third point in idsofts' additional terms: [3]
> 3. LEGAL NOTICES; NO TRADEMARK LICENSE; ORIGIN.
> but that is also covered but the exceptions in the GPL,
> bullet poinst b), c), d) and e)
>
> And finally, point 4 in idsofts addendum, INDEMNIFICATION
> is covered by bullet point f). [4]
>
>
>> I'm going to reject this. Someone should get the idsoft people to fix
>>
>> this.
>
> as outlined above, I don't think idsoft did anything wrong here.
> I hope I could convince you as well :)
> Let me know what is the next step. Do I need to reupload?



-- 
:wq