Bug#131997 acknowledged by developer (Bug#131997: fixed in glut 3.7-12)
David Starner
thanks
> * GLUT headers and examples are actually DFSG free,
> see debian/copyright (Closes: #131997)
The headers say
/* Copyright (c) Mark J. Kilgard, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998. */
/* This program is freely distributable without licensing fees and is
provided without guarantee or warrantee expressed or implied. This
program is -not- in the public domain. */
and debian/copyright says
NOTICE: The OpenGL Utility Toolkit (GLUT) distribution contains source
code published in a book titled "Programming OpenGL for the X Window
System" (ISBN: 0-201-48359-9) published by Addison-Wesley. The
programs and associated files contained in the distribution were
developed by Mark J. Kilgard and are Copyright 1994, 1995, 1996 by Mark
J. Kilgard (unless otherwise noted). The programs are not in the
public domain, but they are freely distributable without licensing
fees. These programs are provided without guarantee or warrantee
expressed or implied.
.
That's not a DFSG-free license - there's no right to modify given. I've
been told that the author basically means the X11 license, but if so,
then he needs to state that, and that needs to be included in the
package.
--
David Starner / Давид Старнзр - sta...@okstate.edu
Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org
What we've got is a blue-light special on truth. It's the hottest thing
with the youth. -- Information Society, "Peace and Love, Inc."
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-leg...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org
David Starner
So I'll cc you directly. (Sorry for the extra copies, James.)
Sam Hartman
David> Apparently, the maintainer of Glut hasn't been changed yet.
David> So I'll cc you directly. (Sorry for the extra copies, James.)
David> On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 02:41:21PM -0600, David Starner wrote:
>> reopen 131997
>> thanks
>>
>> > * GLUT headers and examples are actually DFSG free,
>> > see debian/copyright (Closes: #131997)
I agree with the argument that this is not DFSG free. I'm posting
mostly because it's unclear when no one responds to a message whether
a consensus exists or whether the comment has not been read.
I think this license is sufficiently obviously DFSG non-free that
whoever claimed it was free and closed the bug should spend some time
reviewing the DFSG before continuing to maintain packages.
Jamie Wilkinson
>On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 02:41:21PM -0600, David Starner wrote:
>> reopen 131997
>> thanks
>>
>> > * GLUT headers and examples are actually DFSG free,
>> > see debian/copyright (Closes: #131997)
>>
>>
>> NOTICE: The OpenGL Utility Toolkit (GLUT) distribution contains source
>> code published in a book titled "Programming OpenGL for the X Window
>> System" (ISBN: 0-201-48359-9) published by Addison-Wesley. The
>> programs and associated files contained in the distribution were
>> developed by Mark J. Kilgard and are Copyright 1994, 1995, 1996 by Mark
>> J. Kilgard (unless otherwise noted). The programs are not in the
>> public domain, but they are freely distributable without licensing
>> fees. These programs are provided without guarantee or warrantee
>> expressed or implied.
debian/copyright also includes upstreams response to my queries, which you
conveniently failed to include. In that mail, Mark Kilgard makes it quite
clear that the user certainly has a right to modify his code.
>> That's not a DFSG-free license - there's no right to modify given. I've
>> been told that the author basically means the X11 license, but if so,
>> then he needs to state that, and that needs to be included in the
>> package.
ITYM "no right to modify explicitly given". And if you bothered to read all
of debian/copyright, you would have realised that I had included what the
author means in the package.
--
j...@spacepants.org http://spacepants.org/jaq.gpg
And, Lord, we're especially thankful for nuclear power, the cleanest,
safest energy source there is, except for solar, which is just a pipe
dream.
-- Homer Simpson, Bart Vs. Thanksgiving
Jamie Wilkinson
>I think this license is sufficiently obviously DFSG non-free that
>whoever claimed it was free and closed the bug should spend some time
>reviewing the DFSG before continuing to maintain packages.
I think that you have sufficiently obviously not read the license of this
package that you should spend some time doing so before continuing to give
out your opinions.
--
j...@spacepants.org http://spacepants.org/jaq.gpg
<XFire> FHFS, perl does not suck, its just different. :P~
<StyxToo> In the way that a man with no arms, no legs and an impacted
brain stem is "different"
<StyxToo> Would you go to war with him? I don't think so
-- #spankyhouse
David Starner
> debian/copyright also includes upstreams response to my queries, which you
> conveniently failed to include. In that mail, Mark Kilgard makes it quite
> clear that the user certainly has a right to modify his code.
I'm sorry; the changelog didn't lead me to believe that debian/copyright
had changed. I'm sorry I made that assumption.
But let's look at that change:
Regarding bug#131997:
From: Mark Kilgard <m...@nvidia.com>
To: "'Jamie Wilkinson'" <j...@debian.org>
Subject: RE: GLUT license
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 00:39:29 -0800
Jamie,
An "an open bug against GLUT regarding the license"? That is so
Richard-Stallman-open-source-zealot-idiotic. You have a bug against
a licensee? Funniest thing I heard all day.
What would it mean for someone to not have the "right to modify
the code"? Are you saying I'm going to keep someone from editing
GLUT source files on their own hard drive? Exactly how would I do that?
Better yet, why would I even care?
I wrote GLUT to make it easy for anyone to learn how to program in OpenGL
and make a cool demo that can port easily, etc. I have absolutely no
interest
in some your "social contract" or whatever your agenda happens to be. If
GLUT is useful, make it available; if your ideology gets in the way of
that, not my problem.
- Mark
So what does this change? I still don't know if we could get sued for
changing glut_teapot to produce a Debian swirl. We don't care about
modifying GLUT source code on the hard drive; we need to know we can
modify it and distribute it.
--
David Starner / Давид Старнэр - sta...@okstate.edu
Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org
What we've got is a blue-light special on truth. It's the hottest thing
with the youth. -- Information Society, "Peace and Love, Inc."
Nick Moffitt
[...]
> An "an open bug against GLUT regarding the license"? That is so
> Richard-Stallman-open-source-zealot-idiotic. You have a bug against
> a licensee? Funniest thing I heard all day.
So I realize that this message shows a lack of courtesy on the
part of this individual. I also realize that the Debian package
maintainers do a *lot* of really good work investigating and
negotiating these things. So please don't feel like I'm playing
backseat driver here when I say that it may be possible to avoid
situations like these. I do not accuse any particular person of doing
anything at all wrong!
In a situation like this, it is likely best to avoid
mentioning licenses or copyright until pretty late in the game.
Instead, when approaching a developer, it is best to express things in
terms of "you have given permission to" and "you have told us that we
can do this" and "but here you seem to contradict yourself, could you
explain?".
Pretend that the developer has personally written you a letter
telling you what you may do with the software, and you're asking for
clarification. Act as though the developer in question wrote the GPL
from scratch, and meant every word. That's what the courts will
think.
As for the bug against the license, you may be able to
mitigate this by explaining that these terms here and here are a
statement from the developer, and that the contradiction is a sort of
bug. I'd imagine that would make sense even to someone who sees all
license nit-pickers as "idiot zealots".
> What would it mean for someone to not have the "right to modify
> the code"? Are you saying I'm going to keep someone from editing
> GLUT source files on their own hard drive? Exactly how would I do
> that? Better yet, why would I even care?
Of course, the man has a point here. The maintainer should be
explicit in stating what the practical effects of any contradictions
are. If it does turn out that the author does not want you to
distribute modified versions (or doesn't want to grant you some other
permission required to meet the DFSG), then the maintainer must be
*especially* careful.
It is far too easy to take the attitude of "The DFSG is
correct and all these licenses are incorrect", especially when one has
a moral or ethical attachment to Free Software. Coming across as a
snooty license bigot is a big mistake (and I'm not saying that's what
happened here--in fact, it looks like the author jumped to more than a
few conclusions). Realize that you are asking the author for a
*favor*, and that the burden of proving it worthwhile is up to you.
"Your program is really great, but Debian is a large project.
We need to be able to modify your program and redistribute it with
Debian. Since we want other people to be able to modify Debian, the
program would have to let everyone distribute modified versions. I
understand if you don't want to do this."
--
INFORMATION GLADLY GIVEN BUT SAFETY REQUIRES AVOIDING UNNECESSARY CONVERSATION
end
01234567 <- The amazing* indent-o-meter!
^ (*: Indent-o-meter may not actually amaze.)