I messed up the Debian-legal address: resending. Sorry!

On Thu, 2020-11-05 at 22:10 +0000, Joerg Jaspert wrote:

Hi Maintainer,

I'm sorry to, but I have to reject your package. It simply is non-free
and as such can not go into Debians main archive.

I thought this might happen: the license is unconventional, and I wasn't
sure it would fly. I cc'ed debian-legal in this response: I'm pretty sure
the license is DFSG-free, but IANAL, and they can confirm in a way I
can't.

The reason is the license. As usual, people should NOT write their
own. They are bound to fail.

To be fair, the software probably predates the GPL v1, and certainly the
v2.

(Debian legal: below is the full text of the license distributed with the
code)

-----------------
License: words-license
This is a free program, which means it is proper to copy it and pass
it on to your friends. Consider it a developmental item for which
there is no charge. However, just for form, it is Copyrighted
(c). Permission is hereby freely given for any and all use of program
and data. You can sell it as your own, but at least tell me.
.
This version is distributed without obligation, but the developer
would appreciate comments and suggestions.
.
All parts of the WORDS system, source code and data files, are made
freely
available to anyone who wishes to use them, for whatever purpose. -----------------

This is not free. Going though it, it allows to copy/distribute stuff,
then it allows any kind of usage and selling. And then the first
mistake, it requires you to inform them. Thats repeated in a less
strict statement. And then it tells again that its available to anyone
to use it for whatever purpose.

I disagree. It requires you to inform them, yes, but only if you "sell it
as your own". AFAIK, that is equivalent to saying "Inform me if you
distribute this without crediting me". That's a less strict version of
the acceptable "Keep this copyright notice", since as long as we keep it,
we don't need to inform anyone.

Further, the next sentence says that it is distributed "without
obligation": since you aren't obligated to do anything, it's explicitly in
the clear for the Dissident Test and the Desert Island Test.

In all of that they miss something important - you are not allowed to
modify.

I interpret the fact that it lets you use the source code for "whatever purpose" to mean that you can modify, compile, and distribute it. After
all, source code doesn't have much of a use on its own, and a modification
is a use.

Supporting this idea is the fact that the WTFPL is considered GPL
compatible by the FSF. This is, in many ways, a more formal version of
that.

Lastly, the "without obligation" would probably help: if it's distributed without obligation, you're not obligated to distribute verbatim copies. In fact, I would argue that the fact that it permits you to sell it as your
own (provided a condition is met) to actually indicate that modifications
are permitted: the source cites the author on every run, meaning any such redistribution would need to modify source code.

So two mistakes, must tell them and no right to modify -> non-free.

Best would be if upstream changes to a well-known free license and
adds a polite hint that feedback would be nice, but not required. Then
it can go into main.

That's... difficult. The original author has been dead for a decade, and (AFAIK) the digital preservation efforts whose source I am using is not explicitly authorized by their heir. Upstream appears to be interpreting
the license to mean that modification is OK, since they have done quite a
bit of it: additionally, comments throughout the source code and original website strongly indicate that the source was intended to be modified.

I hope this logic makes sense, and that it would hold up 'in court'.

Thanks for your time,
Calum M

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAABCgAdFiEE/vC/PEGxsMPJ5u5w7/Xh1+DNmzIFAl+kkwkACgkQ7/Xh1+DN mzJzhQ//SgXX+vAgPR3HOxgJbAU+RKZLvvFatUNQdr4CYx6xozk0JiLT1NVJaag0 tHPxW7RvKTdPqgTSlt23mBPe3mP9ulxwvT9K4sdhmc8XgEjMnuN6TkxwjYKXcyK4 M6g9svJSFMqtODHf+2Jb54p12wUtf+TmgiDh8+Jd6ezY+JyOICaLlN3XyvLotlQe HJppFFvLcIwBc3ZYJqnaDu25QGC8rpYsecPISgehXae9a/mBB1lZt5a7N4+3oe4I bDl/eAHN31yt6zHrCjRIvHjs2nXdQIYkkccqN/8mUQSuSqv+r/NVb/P5ZXyIrNFE Z0XESeVi2rZWFygH3GA46a+LH04RVhcwnFGP9N3liriU95FgwdbcZoo2wWCj1hrb CtEHEai8oO0aKKs3evlLLneu7uJk8+B2g2WPt4f5FQQouin1YAZ6Xk5CFmM4VYpx tv44WATXRqOnRGkznwJI0VJRfUtuPo5nTZ6hzH1LbBeEz5PlrkCpeSyVO7RQ2X2f S8AfED/TgCj1TahA5Rqe9GmC5IwNDiJe2fzU6JorrubjCKiAXqylm2fP6MkXaXTI xG0t2P01lxyIUrbPjl6dpP7UWVTR0RPrw7iyA0s9ml1NYiRvdi1DMHw+EAAvTGSN wOgNZh+sU2zqruyZOpBaOhuBAXS1xl2ilvL9EIFNtH4EUB9dB+8=
=MUM8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 15944 March 1977, calumlikesapplepie wrote:

I thought this might happen: the license is unconventional, and I
wasn't
sure it would fly. I cc'ed debian-legal in this response: I'm pretty
sure
the license is DFSG-free, but IANAL, and they can confirm in a way I
can't.

I'm curious to read other opinions.

The reason is the license. As usual, people should NOT write their
own. They are bound to fail.

To be fair, the software probably predates the GPL v1, and certainly
the
v2.

That may be.

-----------------
License: words-license
This is a free program, which means it is proper to copy it and pass
it on to your friends. Consider it a developmental item for which
there is no charge. However, just for form, it is Copyrighted
(c). Permission is hereby freely given for any and all use of
program
and data. You can sell it as your own, but at least tell me.
.
This version is distributed without obligation, but the developer
would appreciate comments and suggestions.
.
All parts of the WORDS system, source code and data files, are made
freely
available to anyone who wishes to use them, for whatever purpose.
-----------------
This is not free. Going though it, it allows to copy/distribute
stuff,
then it allows any kind of usage and selling. And then the first
mistake, it requires you to inform them. Thats repeated in a less
strict statement. And then it tells again that its available to
anyone
to use it for whatever purpose.

I disagree. It requires you to inform them, yes, but only if you
"sell it
as your own". AFAIK, that is equivalent to saying "Inform me if you distribute this without crediting me". That's a less strict version
of
the acceptable "Keep this copyright notice", since as long as we keep
it,
we don't need to inform anyone.

It still fails and stays non-free, as its not a simple "Keep this (C)"
line. Also, that it "only" asks you to do so when you sell it, makes no difference for the inclusion into main.

Further, the next sentence says that it is distributed "without
obligation": since you aren't obligated to do anything, it's
explicitly in
the clear for the Dissident Test and the Desert Island Test.

Thats at minimum a contradiction inside the license.

In all of that they miss something important - you are not allowed to
modify.

I interpret the fact that it lets you use the source code for
"whatever
purpose" to mean that you can modify, compile, and distribute it.
After
all, source code doesn't have much of a use on its own, and a
modification
is a use.
Supporting this idea is the fact that the WTFPL is considered GPL
compatible by the FSF. This is, in many ways, a more formal version
of
that.

No is not, the big difference for the WTFPL is that it actually lists
all the neccessary rights, including allowing modification. The above
does not.

So two mistakes, must tell them and no right to modify -> non-free.

Even if one goes down on the requirement to notify them, the right to
modify stays missing.

Best would be if upstream changes to a well-known free license and
adds a polite hint that feedback would be nice, but not required.
Then
it can go into main.

That's... difficult. The original author has been dead for a decade,
and
(AFAIK) the digital preservation efforts whose source I am using is
not
explicitly authorized by their heir. Upstream appears to be
interpreting
the license to mean that modification is OK, since they have done
quite a
bit of it: additionally, comments throughout the source code and
original
website strongly indicate that the source was intended to be modified.

I hope this logic makes sense, and that it would hold up 'in court'.

Upstream often has a different opinion than we do. What kind of
comments?

--
bye, Joerg

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

-----------------
License: words-license
This is a free program, which means it is proper to copy it and
pass
it on to your friends. Consider it a developmental item for which
there is no charge. However, just for form, it is Copyrighted
(c). Permission is hereby freely given for any and all use of
program
and data. You can sell it as your own, but at least tell me.
.
This version is distributed without obligation, but the developer
would appreciate comments and suggestions.
.
All parts of the WORDS system, source code and data files, are made freely
available to anyone who wishes to use them, for whatever purpose. -----------------
This is not free. Going though it, it allows to copy/distribute
stuff,
then it allows any kind of usage and selling. And then the first
mistake, it requires you to inform them. Thats repeated in a less
strict statement. And then it tells again that its available to
anyone
to use it for whatever purpose.

I disagree. It requires you to inform them, yes, but only if you
"sell it
as your own". AFAIK, that is equivalent to saying "Inform me if you distribute this without crediting me". That's a less strict version
of
the acceptable "Keep this copyright notice", since as long as we keep
it,
we don't need to inform anyone.

It still fails and stays non-free, as its not a simple "Keep this (C)"
line. Also, that it "only" asks you to do so when you sell it, makes no difference for the inclusion into main.

I see we're interpreting "sell it as your own" differently. I think you
are viewing it to mean "redistribute for cash": but if that were true, "as
your own" would be redundant. I read it to mean "redistribute it,
claiming credit for the software". That would mean if you simply sell it, giving credit to him (as Debian does), there is no notification
requirement.

Further, the next sentence says that it is distributed "without obligation": since you aren't obligated to do anything, it's
explicitly in
the clear for the Dissident Test and the Desert Island Test.

Thats at minimum a contradiction inside the license.

It is certainly... problematic. I could get creative with the formal tone
of this paragraph in contrast with the informal tone in the second, or
talk about the interpretation, but I'd probably just embarrass myself to
the lawyers. However, if I was correct about the previous paragraph, I
don't think the contradiction would matter: since there wouldn't be any obligation for our usecase, there can't be one for others

In all of that they miss something important - you are not allowed
to
modify.

I interpret the fact that it lets you use the source code for
"whatever
purpose" to mean that you can modify, compile, and distribute it.
After
all, source code doesn't have much of a use on its own, and a
modification
is a use.
Supporting this idea is the fact that the WTFPL is considered GPL compatible by the FSF. This is, in many ways, a more formal version
of
that.

No is not, the big difference for the WTFPL is that it actually lists
all the neccessary rights, including allowing modification. The above
does not.

The WTFPL is very explicit about the copyright on the license file itself: that's the top half, where it enumerates redistribution of modified source provided the new license isn't called the WTFPL. But the only term that actually applies to source is the 0th: "You just DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT
TO".

It does enumerate copying, distribution, and modification as possible
actions, in that it says the terms are for those actions. But that's not
an exhaustive list, since it doesn't say you can actually use the code.

So two mistakes, must tell them and no right to modify -> non-free.

Even if one goes down on the requirement to notify them, the right to
modify stays missing.

But how does one 'use' source code without modifying it? I suppose you
can compile it, but

I did some research on 'developmental item' (because I had never seen that
term before), and it looks like Whitaker would have been familier with Non-Developmental Items, since all the results relate to the US Airforce
that he was in. Those are defined as "items which can be used with
minimal modification", which means he would see a developmental item as
one requiring modification.

Best would be if upstream changes to a well-known free license and
adds a polite hint that feedback would be nice, but not required.
Then
it can go into main.

That's... difficult. The original author has been dead for a decade,
and
(AFAIK) the digital preservation efforts whose source I am using is
not
explicitly authorized by their heir. Upstream appears to be
interpreting
the license to mean that modification is OK, since they have done
quite a
bit of it: additionally, comments throughout the source code and
original
website strongly indicate that the source was intended to be modified.
I hope this logic makes sense, and that it would hold up 'in court'.

Upstream often has a different opinion than we do. What kind of
comments

"To port to new architectures, update this function" is the example I can
think of off the top of my head.

HOWTO.txt (not yet included in Debian packaging) describes in detail how
to modify the data files.

I'm going to reach out to the upstream author, and see if he can weigh in
on this. They might be able to relicense it, or at least clarify their intentions. The FSF says that for informal licenses like these, intention
is important (at least for the US), so that might help?

If none of that can happen, is it possible to distribute this in non-free?
I know it's not terribly important, like intel-microcode, but it is a fascinating piece of programming history nonetheless.

Thank you,
Calum

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAABCgAdFiEE/vC/PEGxsMPJ5u5w7/Xh1+DNmzIFAl+lsJIACgkQ7/Xh1+DN mzINXA//cFhPWsbTkrF5cQRZGVz5wLMIvD3atVu4kn16aWP11NyRnV1iYsbEi9TW 4apnyVQ1+Sj9t0QQ2PNPojdIMWMw28YLNoWsWh5jgMdXNum5MA5RbkoGjobwbUYX HIW/QpOjmMqDtCRN70JwvN1LBzFXaPqBldJvI+qpO1G5GofS/9lF+LGlYYPVMr7F mbCQa8SaHeFV3cx2Sig/TdMw3VO66kEufHnPc3c/wxGMuD1vtF1UV+mx4JR23Aah n14OPCP0nbqzR6Cev6XJq9CASiyVx91mT5Cwvuclrv/TbTdDHEcC1S/LbHOGFD70 Kq4RMEXVQWMtUfYqGBnzSQBfeTlkMzSnOBxNenuZ4f9ASKS731sTiqtNuYThEwmI DePWlHteYO8G1D4xYWIcdHzkacy4cBd1fuByv3lb435OYCGTgYocEdsz60V7sfJb ohqpEyJl8kE7D/boCkTXft7eGydw8KgbAvOLY8EVeh89mZSp5tNv+oPVF/0hqylO +fh4LEdPh+DsKIiXJRZ70I3D/tmb3Zx/ojIQ0I5GWeXKHdVGvOxTeZeaUz+sKra+ yeYx/G8u44s+etpBTuE/JDJafXbyUfpucGfHCMGJionFobi9UPph7+4klSn4k4eS FvIf9YlnWtSTzJpLI3kyN3XyJL0JmxJO/pTbP1YiIr2RNK70Iyg=
=ltQR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)