Bug#893561: libtablelayout-java: license does not seem to meet the DFSG

Fri Mar 23 23:17:13 UTC 2018

On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 18:30:53 +0100 Markus Koschany wrote:

> Am 19.03.2018 um 22:28 schrieb Francesco Poli (wintermute):
[...]
> > I noticed that the license was
> > [discussed](https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2009/06/msg00050.html)
> > on debian-legal a long time ago.
> > My
> > [opinion](https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2009/06/msg00053.html)
> > was that at least two clauses fail to meet the DFSG.
> 
> In the end the ftp-team accepted the package into Debian and that is the
> only thing that counts.

Was the debian-legal discussion pointed out to the FTP Masters?
Did they explain the rationale behind their decision? 

> 
> > 
> > The debian/copyright file states, in part:
> > 
> > | The source code has been modified to make the package suitable for main (see
> > | license III. 4.). The package namespace has been changed from
> > | info.clearthought.layout to org.debian.tablelayout.
> > 
> > Personally, I don't think that applying a patch that changes the namespace
> > is enough to make the package suitable for Debian main.
> 
> This is certainly enough. We change the namespace all the time in Debian
> Java packages by using maven.rules for example. Also using patch files
> is explicitly allowed by DFSG 4.

The issue is not the requirement to modify the package through patch
files. Patch-only clauses are explicitly allowed by DFSG#4, as you
correctly point out.
As I have previously said, the issue is that the license forbids to
create a derived work that uses the info.clearthought namespace/package.

This goes beyond what is allowed by DFSG#4, which only talks about
patch files and requirements to change the *name* or the *version
number*.

> 
> > I mean: it's true that it is now possible to create drop-in replacements
> > for the Debian package (without further changing the namespace), but it is
> > still forbidden to create a modified version that changes the namespace
> > back to "info.clearthought".
> > 
> > I think that this restriction goes beyond what is allowed by DFSG#4.
> 
> This is your personal opinion. It was already discussed on debian-legal
> back in 2009 that the license is still acceptable and in the spirit of
> the DFSG.

Wait, it was indeed discussed on debian-legal back in 2009.

The thread is the very
[one](https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2009/06/msg00050.html)
I cited in my bug report.

There were two replies, one by Joe Smith and one by me.
Joe said that the license is acceptable and within the spirit of the
DFSG.
On the other hand, I said that two clauses fail to meet the DFSG.

Now, I respect Joe's opinion, but it's not clear to me why you claim
that *his* reply represents the outcome of the debian-legal discussion,
while *my* reply is just my personal opinion...

> 
> > Additionally, the license is clearly GPL-incompatible, which may
> > be an issue for other packages that link with this library.
> > 
> > Is it possible to persuade the upstream copyright holder to
> > drop clauses III.3 and III.4?
> > Or, even better, to re-license the library under well-vetted and
> > clearly DFSG-free terms, such as the
> > [Expat/MIT license](http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt)
> > or the
> > [zlib license](http://www.zlib.net/zlib_license.html)
> > ?
> 
> No. We do not need to persuade the upstream copyright holder to change
> the license as long as the package was accepted by the ftp-team. If you
> think a package is GPL-incompatible

The license of libtablelayout-java is *clearly* GPL-incompatible, no
doubt about it.

It is a patch-only license and has restrictions on namespace change for
derived works.
These restrictions (and possibly other ones) are not included in the
GNU GPL v2 or v3, nor allowed by them.

> and you are not sure whether you can
> use it together with this library you should seek legal advice in your
> country. This is out-of-scope for Debian and as far as I am and the rest
> of the team are concerned, this is not an issue for us. Closing as
> not-a-bug.

It seems to be an issue for Debian: there are packages in Debian which
are GPL-licensed and link (directly or indirectly) with
libtablelayout-java.

Linking a GPL-licensed program or library with a GPL-incompatible
library requires special permission from the copyright holders of the
GPL-licensed program or library, as explain in the dedicated GPL
[FAQ](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InterpreterIncompat).

Some examples of GPL-licensed packages which link with
libtablelayout-java:

 • [jfractionlab](https://packages.debian.org/jfractionlab)
   [is GPL-v3-licensed](https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/j/jfractionlab/copyright-0.91-3)
   without any special exception and is linked with libtablelayout-java

 • [sweethome3d](https://packages.debian.org/sweethome3d)
   [is GPL-v2-licensed](https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/s/sweethome3d/copyright-5.7dfsg-2)
   without any special exception and is linked with libtablelayout-java
   (indirectly through libfreehep-graphicsio-svg-java,
   libfreehep-graphicsio-tests-java, and libjas-plotter-java)

In order to solve these issues, the easiest solution is persuading the
upstream copyright holder of libtablelayout-java to re-license it under
GPL-v2-and-v3-compatible terms.

Please reopen the bug report.

-- 
 http://www.inventati.org/frx/
 There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory!
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82  3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-java-maintainers/attachments/20180324/d9006cb5/attachment.sig>