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

[Francesco Poli]

On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 15:22:12 +0100 Markus Koschany wrote:

> Am 24.03.2018 um 00:17 schrieb Francesco Poli:
[...]
> > Was the debian-legal discussion pointed out to the FTP Masters?
> > Did they explain the rationale behind their decision? 
> 
> FYI, debian-legal is a mailing list and not a Debian body that can exert
> any power over the FTP masters.

I am well aware of this, as I have participated in debian-legal
discussions for more than 13 years.

debian-legal is more like a sort of advisory board, where licensing
issues are discussed and analyzed. The FTP Masters are not bound to
follow the advice, of course.
But, whenever an issue was actually discussed on debian-legal, it is
useful for the FTP Masters to be informed about the discussion, so that
they can see what was said and pointed out, before making their
decision.
Otherwise, what's the point in having a discussion on debian-legal, if
the FTP Masters are left unaware of it and must analyze the license
from scratch?

> They may or may not have been aware of
> the discussion but by accepting libtablelayout-java into Debian they
> clearly made a decision in favor of the license.

The FTP Masters are humans and may make mistakes, like all of us.
They could have overlooked some troublesome clause in the license, if
not informed about the potential issue...

[...]
> > 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*.
> 
> No, this is precisely why DFSG 4 mentions patch files explicitly and why
> DFSG 4 is named "Integrity of The Author's Source Code".

Once again, patch files are not the freeness issue I am talking about.
The troublesome clause is the namespace-change restriction.

> We respect the
> authors source code and his wish to preserve the info.clearthough
> namespace. Nevertheless we are allowed to change it for derived works
> and can rename it to any name we want. This is sufficiently DFSG-free.
> The name is "info.clearthought" which is the official upstream URL. It
> is common practice in Java to use a namespace that corresponds to some
> URL. It is completely fair to reserve info.clearthought because Debian
> also reserves the rights for debian.org or the name Debian in general.

Please let me understand, as I am not too familiar with Java.
Isn't the namespace concept in Java similar to the corresponding
concept in C++?

Suppose someone has several Java programs that link with
libtablelayout-java and use classes from the info.clearthought
namespace.
Suppose he/she wants to use a modified version of libtablelayout-java
(maybe with some bugs fixed, or something like that) where the
namespace has been changed to a different one.
Can he/she use the programs with the modified libtablelayout-java,
without having to modify each one of them?

In other words, can someone develop a fork of libtablelayout-java (with
the namespace changed to a different one) which works as a drop-in
replacement for the original libtablelayout-java?

[...]
> > 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...
> 
> I have never said that and it is also not relevant.

Well, you said:

"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."

as if the only reply on debian-legal had been the one from Joe...

[...]
> > 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.
> 
> Again, this is _your_ opinion. If it was that easy we wouldn't need any
> lawyers in the world.

Sorry, but that is not just _my_ opinion.
It's a well known fact: patch-only licenses are GPL-incompatible.
Anyone who knows enough about the GNU GPL will tell you so.

We may need lawyers for difficult licensing issues, but not for every
single step during software development!

[...]
> Feel free to contact all
> upstreams yourself though and discuss any licensing issues with them.

I may try to contact the upstream developers myself, but on isolated
voice is much less likely to be listened to than the Debian package
maintainers with the backing of the Debian Project...


-- 
 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/20180328/d31ae4ad/attachment.sig>