[Fedora-legal-list] Re: dcraw.c licensing ambiguity

[Nils Philippsen]

Hi Dave,

thanks for your quick reply. I'll keep fedora-legal-list on copy,
perhaps they want to comment.

On Wed, 2007-09-05 at 20:39 -0400, dcoffin at cybercom.net wrote:
> Hi Nils,
> 
>      I changed the text because some customers are paranoid
> about the letters "GPL".  It seems that Debian is bothered by:
> 
> > (a) include full source code*
> 
>      Now I don't need to exactly match the GPL, but I must
> require something that commercial software companies would
> never accept, without creating problems for distributors of
> free software.
> 
>      How about changing "include" to "offer, at no extra
> charge,"?

I'm not a lawyer ;-), but the source code provisions in the GPL are a
bit complicated -- to stay compatible, one would have to formulate
something compatible to 32 lines of legalese in the GPL license ;-). I
don't know about your customers, but I think an easy way to stay
compatible to the GPL would be dual-licensing, e.g. extend the text to
something like:

"... *If you have not modified dcraw.c in any way, a link to my homepage
qualifies as "full source code". ALTERNATIVELY, at your option, you may
distribute the code under the conditions of the GNU [Lesser] General
Public License Version 2[.1] [(or, at your option, any later version)]
[continue with standard GPL blurb]"

Of course, the version of the [L]GPL and whether you allow later
versions is up to you (it's your code). Would your customers be scared
away by that?

Thanks,
Nils


> 				Dave Coffin  9/5/2007
> 
> On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 05:08:33PM +0200, Nils Philippsen wrote:
> > Hi Dave,
> > 
> > I'm the Fedora/Red Hat Enterprise Linux package maintainer for dcraw and
> > when going over the licenses of some of my packages I found that the
> > licensing blurb of dcraw.c has changed like this ("-": old, "+": new
> > version):
> > 
> > --- 8< ---
> > -   Attention!  Some parts of this program are restricted under the
> > -   terms of the GNU General Public License.  Such code is enclosed
> > -   in "BEGIN GPL BLOCK" and "END GPL BLOCK" declarations.
> > -   Any code not declared GPL is free for all uses.
> > +   No license is required to download and use dcraw.c.  However,
> > +   to lawfully redistribute this code, you must either (a) include
> > +   full source code* for all executable files containing RESTRICTED
> > +   functions, (b) remove all RESTRICTED functions, re-implement them,
> > +   or copy them from an earlier, unrestricted Revision of dcraw.c,
> > +   or (c) purchase a license from the author.
> >  
> > -   Starting in Revision 1.237, the code to support Foveon cameras
> > -   is under GPL.
> > +   The functions that process Foveon images have been RESTRICTED
> > +   since Revision 1.237.  All other code remains free for all uses.
> >  
> > -   To lawfully redistribute dcraw.c, you must either (a) include
> > -   full source code for all executable files containing restricted
> > -   functions, (b) remove these functions, re-implement them, or
> > -   copy them from an earlier, non-GPL Revision of dcraw.c, or (c)
> > -   purchase a license from the author.
> > +   *If you have not modified dcraw.c in any way, a link to my
> > +   homepage qualifies as "full source code".
> > --- >8 ---
> > 
> > With the upcoming Fedora version 8, we want all packages' licensing
> > terms be listed in the package (e.g. "GPLv2+" for GNU GPL Version 2 or
> > later"). Now I'm a bit unsure about what to do about the terms of
> > dcraw.c and whether they are still GPL compatible(*) and so forth.
> > 
> > (*): IIRC, GPL allows distribution of a binary without source code but a
> > written offer to ship it on request. The source code provisions in the
> > dcraw terms might be "additional restrictions" that aren't GPL
> > compatible.
> > 
> > Would you please shed some light on this? I'd very much appreciate it.
> > 
> > Thanks in advance,
> > Nils
> > -- 
> >      Nils Philippsen    /    Red Hat    /    nphilipp at redhat.com
> > "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary
> >  Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."  --  B. Franklin, 1759
> >  PGP fingerprint:  C4A8 9474 5C4C ADE3 2B8F  656D 47D8 9B65 6951 3011
-- 
     Nils Philippsen    /    Red Hat    /    nphilipp at redhat.com
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary
 Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."  --  B. Franklin, 1759
 PGP fingerprint:  C4A8 9474 5C4C ADE3 2B8F  656D 47D8 9B65 6951 3011