1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. LINUX.DEBIAN.LEGAL

  • Expat license and "free for academic users"

    From Andrius Merkys@21:1/5 to All on Tue Jun 20 09:40:01 2023
    Hello,

    [Please keep me in CC, I am not subscribed]

    I encountered a package EvoEF2 [1] which is licensed under Expat and has
    the following in its README.md:

    "EvoEF2 is free to academic users."

    To me such limitation seems to contradict the Expat license, but I
    wonder what is the legal opinion about such combination. I know that I
    can always ask the upstream for clarification which I did earlier when
    the restriction was:

    "... unauthorized copying of the source code files via any medium is
    strictly prohibited."

    However, I am interested in the legal meaning of the current situation.

    [1] https://github.com/tommyhuangthu/EvoEF2
    [2] https://github.com/tommyhuangthu/EvoEF2/issues/1

    Best,
    Andrius

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Francesco Poli@21:1/5 to All on Wed Jun 21 00:30:01 2023
    On Tue, 20 Jun 2023 10:14:41 +0300 Andrius Merkys wrote:

    Hello,

    Hi!


    [Please keep me in CC, I am not subscribed]

    Done.


    I encountered a package EvoEF2 [1] which is licensed under Expat and has
    the following in its README.md:

    "EvoEF2 is free to academic users."

    To me such limitation seems to contradict the Expat license, but I
    wonder what is the legal opinion about such combination. I know that I
    can always ask the upstream for clarification which I did earlier when
    the restriction was:

    "... unauthorized copying of the source code files via any medium is strictly prohibited."

    However, I am interested in the legal meaning of the current situation.

    [1] https://github.com/tommyhuangthu/EvoEF2
    [2] https://github.com/tommyhuangthu/EvoEF2/issues/1

    Well, take into account that I am not a lawyer.

    Anyway, to me, the sentence "EvoEF2 is free to academic users." looks
    a little misleading.

    One could nitpick that the sentence is not false: it's true that EvoEF2
    is free to academic users, since it's released under the Expat license,
    and therefore it's free to everyone, including academic users.

    However, the sentence may make the reader think that EvoEF2 is free
    _only_ to academic users, although it does not say so.

    I would suggest to once again get in touch with upstream and persuade
    them to drop that sentence, or perhaps to replace it with something
    like "EvoEF2 is free to all users."

    I hope this helps.



    --
    http://www.inventati.org/frx/
    There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! ..................................................... Francesco Poli .
    GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE

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

    iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEygERR5zS79/7gjklPhwn4R9pv/4FAmSSJncACgkQPhwn4R9p v/4TghAAxMu4xq83W1KAH2X8sCwPFy9icp5ueqhqZdhXqS/D/30rpcq61i7sYsh6 bKdwZGdPJqfSSk3s+lS9yrEvizla3VPt8OsfuuWTZT15m0htg5NKDWgGLJ5owLy4 NGiK3QY1HKvbQStz7C2QXDHg2Qzd7MDE+kRbQ2XIft6B+9X7sm2YvgPkjuRhubIj QjsRreUAq4ugthcO/zusygF4UzyJwlxQR1t0mdNsuquo8tkBAlaKepYRA+ee4fkA i9eJgDA4LjA7BEYxJui8ysrNyX8EKBP8rN1dpi/sSVcnBfk2ul/CIeC87FaH49Ni t4UzAtmz0TdZYAr47Uow71c4BVreu4GLvewAluuWNoR8K0yY7bg8pTZew0Ofq4X6 gyokO238xqGnytV7AB5bITq2pQwB6R7SGWivQ/4iRwEaXL02j4gIIZXUD8gZtYjX /dNUepnV9S9XQaEj6GB25aL/RaEDHP9HEHErPYbbZziXQSgvg3MU3QQwQd5HgP9p VOZksfIP3c/ScPb6enUM6b7/BBkPzyWIEgwQ96Vb1hF8favmbclK0o6sDLr/DKf7 McCtlvzj/6KVl9pAvnAjJi/CjzzFQVSpiys3CCq+lYAUni09ytd771hCiWx/CsX1 j4DnaVksTdKDCCg21BfOmFO+8wWcJ5RX
  • From Nicholas D Steeves@21:1/5 to Francesco Poli on Wed Jun 21 04:50:01 2023
    Francesco Poli <[email protected]> writes:

    On Tue, 20 Jun 2023 10:14:41 +0300 Andrius Merkys wrote:

    [Please keep me in CC, I am not subscribed]

    I encountered a package EvoEF2 [1] which is licensed under Expat and has
    the following in its README.md:

    "EvoEF2 is free to academic users."

    To me such limitation seems to contradict the Expat license, but I
    wonder what is the legal opinion about such combination. I know that I
    can always ask the upstream for clarification which I did earlier when
    the restriction was:

    1. EvoEF2 is licensed Expat
    2. Expat makes EvoEF2 free for all users
    3. "EvoEF2 is free to academic users."
    4. I am a[n] [academic] user
    5. EvoEF2 is free for me.

    #3 is redundant because it is a subset of #2.

    vs

    1. EvoEF2 is licensed Expat
    2. Expat makes EvoEF2 free for all users
    3. "EvoEF2 is free to academic users."
    4. I am a [commercial or nonacademic] user
    5. EvoEF2 is free for me.

    At #2, all users, includes nonacademic, commercial, etc. #3 becomes an editorial: a statement of the anticipated audience and nothing more.

    Well, take into account that I am not a lawyer.

    I'm also not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.

    Anyway, to me, the sentence "EvoEF2 is free to academic users." looks
    a little misleading.

    Agreed.

    One could nitpick that the sentence is not false: it's true that EvoEF2
    is free to academic users, since it's released under the Expat license,
    and therefore it's free to everyone, including academic users.

    However, the sentence may make the reader think that EvoEF2 is free
    _only_ to academic users, although it does not say so.

    I agree that this is the important part! It seems legally nonbinding to
    me, and not nice to the reader.

    Also, I think it would be a stretch to successfully argue that the
    antecedent of a redundant statement in the README somehow acts as an
    addendum to the LICENSE, such that the license is no longer Expat.
    Maybe there are some parts of the world were this is how an addendum
    works, but I think the additional statements usually need to be
    explicitly defined as such. ie: "This is an addendum to the LICENSE...I
    limit the LICENSE in the following way...".

    I would suggest to once again get in touch with upstream and persuade
    them to drop that sentence, or perhaps to replace it with something
    like "EvoEF2 is free to all users."

    Agreed! On the other hand, if the author intends to forbid commercial
    use, then the license should say so. While not great for the community,
    that may also be what the author wishes for...

    Cheers,
    Nicholas

    --=-=-Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

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

    iQJHBAEBCgAxFiEE4qYmHjkArtfNxmcIWogwR199EGEFAmSSY50THG5zdGVldmVz QGdtYWlsLmNvbQAKCRBaiDBHX30QYQXPD/9sDOB6sDYFiVUtrDVxCZzS9+wWuFkN PtTVwCv62IhYsv0tAKZyP3w7AmocBDUv4rJd0ZpuSzot89GYsdUd1rf27TIoJvJg pSnYL2PDliyiUsiglCg0U/DoyadqAf4gV/kUeXaXuPvHwz14lpZ9FH6YDD+FbW4x BFMKCEE041Fa1sGJUp3ji30UhsIrsOz35cZVbaR6JZ+YztzOScJgaKJTh4Lis07y dRBVQdV2IplQum+buS9GuAkQh5XYxoY7J0XgHbbAh9vB3XUa8//gliEJSTI9IuP1 ZaBjIjgWIjWRrCVunWcU0rYZDbzIEGrM5JQRr0MH9CFVjd32WW+b26GFjKJSsB+m dD7JVO7BQqvAxYKv1CB8Z4yJVcptWrOg5IqSDv1TaP6bG6u4IOHiFp5RYtDEuJoe dcexXV0lCpY1ua1/lrew4qxo9HIR2T6rKESOOdiRfCSVnI5pxqdPazSujaE/e3FB wh8glsq8UWDfroXXU7qyfmIzTJfbwpT2xIO6Q1MM3e4LINcEzaDGvdaD6dYr+u4x SiglHVgq7U5s9ePSl6/0LdPHB3I2NiLzcgaKriOTAXAPdwtNl+31E9+Juct/g423 gFucpjy2JQr8XZ/oHDmFLqRVpY7bJ9RxIOdav+IXfjkzOKKtrxu65BV15RpS5cQD oU+FvKXt+4lA/g=*Aw
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Sam Hartman@21:1/5 to All on Thu Jun 22 16:50:01 2023
    "Andrius" == Andrius Merkys <[email protected]> writes:

    Andrius> Hello, [Please keep me in CC, I am not subscribed]

    Andrius> I encountered a package EvoEF2 [1] which is licensed under
    Andrius> Expat and has the following in its README.md:

    Andrius> "EvoEF2 is free to academic users."

    Andrius> To me such limitation seems to contradict the Expat
    Andrius> license, but I wonder what is the legal opinion about such
    Andrius> combination. I know that I can always ask the upstream for
    Andrius> clarification which I did earlier when the restriction was:

    I mean under xpat, it's certainly free for academic users, and it's also
    free for everyone else.

    Unless that statement in the readme is in a section called license or
    otherwise claims to be a license, I'd treat it as xpat and move on with
    life.
    Sometimes the best approach to licensing is to take a defensible
    position and not to try and find problems.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Andrius Merkys@21:1/5 to Sam Hartman on Thu Jun 22 17:40:01 2023
    Hi all,

    Thank you for your prompt responses.

    On 2023-06-22 17:49, Sam Hartman wrote:
    I mean under xpat, it's certainly free for academic users, and it's also
    free for everyone else.

    Unless that statement in the readme is in a section called license or otherwise claims to be a license, I'd treat it as xpat and move on with
    life.

    The "free to academic users" comment is in "COPYRIGHT & CONTACT" section
    of a readme file.

    Sometimes the best approach to licensing is to take a defensible
    position and not to try and find problems.

    Just to clarify: does this mean one should avoid ambiguous licenses?

    Best wishes,
    Andrius

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