[brlcad-tracker] [ brlcad-Bugs-2128053 ] Copyright issue

SourceForge Headquarters 225 Broadway Suite 1600 San Diego, CA 92101 +1 (858) 454-5900

Bugs item #2128053, was opened at 2008-09-25 10:07
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by brlcad
You can respond by visiting: 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=640802&aid=2128053&group_id=105292

Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread,
including the initial issue submission, for this request,
not just the latest update.
Category: Documentation
Group: unexpected behavior
Status: Closed
Resolution: Invalid
Priority: 9
Private: No
Submitted By: Giuseppe Iuculano (derevko)
Assigned to: Sean Morrison (brlcad)
Summary: Copyright issue

Initial Comment:
Hi,

I'm packaging brl-cad for Debian, a free operating system.

src/util/pixpaste.c src/util/pixpaste.c src/util/pixcut.c have a non-free license, and they can't be redistribute:

 *  Copyright Notice -
 *      This software is Copyright (C) 1992 by Paladin Software
 *      All rights reserved.

This copyright notice isn't obviously compatible with BSD or LGPL license. Can you fix this please?

I would like to package brl-cad for debian, but with this copyright violation I can't.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

>Comment By: Sean Morrison (brlcad)
Date: 2008-09-26 12:27

Message:
Not acceptable for inclusion is not at all the same as declaring something
not free, plain and simple.  It's a subtle difference but a very important
one.  Especially when the content in question is free is a true FOSS sense,
but it's just not suitably marked so that it can be "considered free for
Debian integration purposes" (which is a better way to characterize it,
btw).   I have absolutely no problem whatsoever resolving the clarity,
markings, and any other integration issues you run into.  I'd love to help
and honestly do _appreciate_ what you're doing.  It's a feature that has
been often requested for several years now and it took a lot of
modifications to BRL-CAD over the past couple years to make it even
possible.

It's the act of saying "it's not free" that actually (and unfortunately)
becomes a really bad problem for us simply because it is not a true
statement and it is one that has potentially very negative consequences in
our situation due to our audience and the attention on our project.  It's
potentially a very big deal to our project (hence the Highest priority
ranking) to have someone make a claim regarding a legal matter (especially
one that isn't true from our perspective) and to not respond to those
statements.  I only ask that folks be careful in characterizing something
as 'not free' vs 'not suitable for integration'.  If it didn't matter, I
wouldn't have bothered in the first place.

This was seriously not intended to be an attack or deride on you
personally Guiseppe, and if it came across as such, I do apologize for
that.  My previous response was more about public statements and actions in
general as they affect our project.  Thank you (again), really thank you,
for the efforts being made.  Tis good stuff.  I do hope we can move past
this on to a better topic ... like how you're going to get system incrTcl
integration working..  :-) 

Cheers!
Sean

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Giuseppe Iuculano (derevko)
Date: 2008-09-26 10:50

Message:
As I wrote, I apologise for the incorrect terms, but I don't understand why
you are continuing to underline this. 

I'm not interested in legal topic/issue, simply I'm packaging brlcad, and
asked to relevant people if those files are acceptable for a Debian
inclusion. The answer was negative, with that license header they are *NOT*
distributable even if you have a COPYNG file, those files haven't a proper
license/header/statement or as you want call it, and *those* files can't be
consider free.

What you think about this point of view is important, but it is not
relevant for my purpose. 

I don't understand where my manner was "malign", but I apologise again.

Now you can continue to use terms as "malign", "incorrectness",
"arrogant", "ignorant", but I'm not going to go on with this sterile
discussion.

Have a nice day.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Sean Morrison (brlcad)
Date: 2008-09-26 09:21

Message:
Bernd,

That's certainly a point-of-view I can appreciate and accept.  The file
was ambiguous given COPYING doesn't say that *all* 3rd party contributions
are in our src/other directory (though I believe they now may be, haven't
done a full audit in a while).  Had the discussion started from that
perspective or had he even merely stated the matter as a question instead
of boldly making false suppositions, I wouldn't have taken any issue with
the matter.

It's also not just an issue of tact (which was maybe lost in translation),
but a matter of incorrectness.  Giuseppe's reason, statements, and
explanations, however, were simply not right.  As I stated in my original
reply to him, that really does a disservice to Debian and free software
projects alike to approach a project (for the first time, mind you) and to
confidently yet incorrectly make claims about legal matters.  Not being
able to verify something isn't free and being compelled to not include it
are rather different from actually *being* non-free.

I know his intentions are probably genuine (I certainly don't know him
well enough to state otherwise), that he encountered a concern, and that he
asked us to do something about it.  His manner of conveying that concern
both in his original message and in his reply, however, was atrociously
maligned.

I'd also be completely happy if I didn't have to deal with licensing,
copyrights, and patents.  Alas, I have to deal with those matters on a
nearly daily basis in my line of work, particularly as they pertain to open
source software development.  BRL-CAD is a very large package with an
extensive history that I've taken great pride and efforts in making open
source, preserving the history, and wrangling all of the legal matters
successfully after many years of efforts.

More care really should be taken by the Debian "faithful" else they can
very easily come across as arrogant, ignorant, or zealous missionaries that
care more about the "cause" than doing right and that does a major
disservice to the free software community.  I'm not speaking specifically
of Giuseppe but I do have to answer to an audience far more impacting on
BRL-CAD than Debian will ever be and his careless/misspoken comments have
the potential to cause harm as it's a form of FUD.   I understand your
efforts to explain the situation from your perspective and to quell the
waters, per se, so thank you for chiming in.  This issue is resolved from
my point of view.

Sean  

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Bernd Zeimetz (zeimetz)
Date: 2008-09-26 08:23

Message:
>From the Debian point of view the file was *not* distributable. With its
different copyright it is not obvious that the license in COPYING is valid
for the file, too, so we'd have to assume it doesn't have a license, so it
wouldn't even be allowed to go into the non-free part (for that it would
have to be distributable). At least for me it's not obvious if the file is
a contribution or a third party component (which keeps it's
copyright/license/.... according to COPYING).
There're a lot of open source projects with really non-free, patented or
otherwise bad pieces of source within their source code, so Debian's ftp
masters are *really* strict about such issues, and I'm sure the package
would have been rejected because of that file.
I'm neither a lawyer nor do I like to discuss such licensing and copyright
questions (I'd be more happy if all the license and copyright stuff
wouldn't be needed at all), I just wanted to try to explain Debian's point
of view to you.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Sean Morrison (brlcad)
Date: 2008-09-26 08:02

Message:
Thank you for the apology and response as well but I'm afraid you still
really don't understand.

To clarify, a copyright statement absolutely does not (by itself) mean
software is free or not free.  You have to know the distribution terms.  If
there are no evident distribution terms on the work, then there can be a
problem (but still not necessarily).  There is absolutely nothing that says
the terms have to be included in every file.

It is if (and only if) there is NO usage or distribution *anywhere* in the
collective work that it becomes a problem.  So long as there is a statement
and/or corresponding license information somewhere readily accessible in a
package, it's completely legal and sufficient.  The intent is expressed and
covers the work.

The GPL, LGPL, and BSD licenses are all based on copyright law and require
a copyright claim.  We could have just as easily removed our headers from
all files leaving only the copyright line or even no copyright line, and
only used one distribution/license statement and it would have been
perfectly legal, and still 100% free software.  There are plenty of
packages that do exactly that.

As a collective work (which is all we're dealing with here), it's
perfectly valid to have just one distribution statement.  Having the
statement placed in every file is a convention often done in software
source code only because it's just more explicit, more blatently obvious,
easier to defend against in the case of violations, and it allows the files
to be distributed outside the collective work.  Those are all great
features, but they don't mean that it's required in the least.

Knowledge is powerful.  I strongly suggest reading up some on groklaw,
wikipedia, and/or consulting some real legal advice before making legal
suppositions that you're "pretty sure" about.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Giuseppe Iuculano (derevko)
Date: 2008-09-26 07:09

Message:
You are right, I'm not expert on legal or license related issue, I'm sorry
if I didn't use the correct terms, and I'm very sorry if you are offended.

Thanks for your fast response and for adding the missing license headers.

Giuseppe.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Sean Morrison (brlcad)
Date: 2008-09-26 00:42

Message:
Apologies in advance if I sound harsh -- and I *do* appreciate that you're
trying to integrate BRL-CAD into apt -- but I'm actually rather offended by
the manner you've brought this to attention.  You make several claims that
are simply wrong.  Technically, those files merely don't specify their
license directly in the file.  A copyright notice is NOT a license, not
even an implicit statement of license, and it certainly isn't a "violation"
to have one.  By itself, a copyright claim has absolutely nothing to do
with license "compatibility".

If you're going to complain about legal matters and request changes,
please at least use the correct terms and statements.  Otherwise, you
really do the Debian project, open source, and free software a disservice
because you come across as pushing a legal agenda while completely lacking
a legal background.  I'm well aware of open source legality matters, the
philosophical and political goals of the Debian project, and requirements
for apt integration.  What those files *are* missing is an _explicit_
license statement (of any kind), and that is what can be improved.

Legally speaking, though, that's not strictly required because 1) those
files are not distributed in isolation or individually and 2) their license
is simply covered in a different file; it's in our COPYING file.

Those files are old BRL-CAD contributions that merely escaped automatic
header updates because of their non-standard format.  They are, however,
still covered by the LGPL and this is made explicit in our COPYING file
where it says anything without a license specified is covered by the LGPL. 
It could certainly be more obvious, but that shouldn't have anything to do
with integration given they are licensed under the LGPL.

I've added the missing license headers so it's more clear down the road,
but you really are already good to go as-is.  Thank you again for your
efforts.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

You can respond by visiting: 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=640802&aid=2128053&group_id=105292

[brlcad-tracker] [ brlcad-Bugs-2128053 ] Copyright issue

Open Source Solid Modeling CAD

[brlcad-tracker] [ brlcad-Bugs-2128053 ] Copyright issue