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

Wed Mar 28 22:38:42 UTC 2018

Am 28.03.2018 um 23:34 schrieb 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.

I intend to make this my last reply to Debian bug #893561. However if my
following answer does not satisfy you, there is the last resort of
asking Debian's technical committee (CTTE) for a definite ruling.

> 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?

I know your involvement in debian-legal from previous discussions. Like
I said before debian-legal is a mailing list and not an authoritative
body of Debian. Of course everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion
but nevertheless in the end only the FTP masters decide whether a
license is compatible to Debian's Free Software Guidelines. It is at
least questionable why you act now, _nine_ years later.

>> 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...

Please note that this package was introduced to Debian by Torsten Werner
who was once a FTP master himself. I know that Torsten was highly
critical of some game licenses that were accepted into Debian and I'm
pretty sure he didn't introduce libtablelayout-java purely on a whim.

> [...]
>>> 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.

As I pointed out before the namespace-change is not an issue for Debian.
We are acting according to the license and there is certainly no need to
revert to the original namespace once you have created a derived work?

>> 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?

We have already created a derived work of libtablelayout-java. We don't
need to change the namespace ever again. This is similar to license
clauses that say: If you make changes to this program, don't claim it is
the original program, mark them as separate changes. We have accepted
such licenses into Debian and it makes a lot of sense to do so.

> [...]
>>> 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...

Oh gosh, how many people live on this planet? Everyone has a different
opinion about certain topics but in the end we have to make a decision.
The decision was in favor of this license.

> [...]
>>> 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!

You are completely wrong if you think it is the responsibility of
volunteers to address any _possible_ license violation in any country in
the world. If you think a certain library is incompatible with a certain
program, then you really, really should talk to the developer of said
program first! Discuss with them if this is a real issue for them and if
they agree we can package a new upstream release at any time (with the
appropriate severity).

> [...]
>> 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...

Talk to upstream. Debian is not responsible for that.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 963 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-java-maintainers/attachments/20180329/1ff15083/attachment.sig>