BOINC: lib/cal.h license issue agree with the DFSG?

Fri Jan 1 22:57:18 UTC 2010

On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 14:46:27 -0600 Fernando C. Estrada wrote:

> Hi

Hi!  :)

[...]
> Now,
> the doubt is in the lib/cal.h file, because includes the "license"
> pasted at the end of this message.

I personally see various problems with this file.
Assuming that the license you quoted constitutes the whole set of
permissions granted on this file, I think that lib/cal.h does *not*
comply with the DFSG.

I think that the copyright holder should be contacted and asked for a
more permissive license, so that lib/cal.h can meet the DFSG and be
compatible with the other licenses of parts that are linked with
lib/cal.h ...
Other possible solutions are: drop lib/cal.h from the Debian package,
if at all possible.
Or move the package to non-free, while moving all the packages that
depend or recommend it to contrib.

My detailed comments may be found below.
Needless to say, they represent my own personal opinion; other
debian-legal participants may or may not agree... 

[...]
> Thanks in advance and Best Regards!

You're welcome.

> 
> P.S. Please keep in the answer the CC to the Debian BOINC Maintainers
> Team.

Done.

> 
> /* ============================================================
> 
> Copyright (c) 2007 Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.  All rights reserved.
> 
> Redistribution and use of this material is permitted under the following
> conditions:

I cannot find any permission to modify or distribute modified versions
of the file.
This seems to fail DFSG#3.

[...]
> In no event shall anyone redistributing or accessing or using this
> material
> commence or participate in any arbitration or legal action relating to
> this
> material against Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. or any copyright holders
> or
> contributors. The foregoing shall survive any expiration or termination
> of
> this license or any agreement or access or use related to this material.

This takes away a right I would have in the absence of any license.
That is to say, in order to get the permission to redistribute or use,
I must surrender my right to commence or participate in any legal
action related to this work.
I see this as a fee required for getting the permission to
redistribute: the presence of such a fee makes the work fail DFSG#1.

[...]
> THE
> FOREGOING ARE ESSENTIAL TERMS OF THIS LICENSE AND, IF ANY OF THESE TERMS
> ARE
> CONSTRUED AS UNENFORCEABLE, FAIL IN ESSENTIAL PURPOSE, OR BECOME VOID OR
> DETRIMENTAL TO ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC. OR ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDERS OR
> CONTRIBUTORS FOR ANY REASON, THEN ALL RIGHTS TO REDISTRIBUTE, ACCESS OR
> USE
> THIS MATERIAL SHALL TERMINATE IMMEDIATELY.

This is also worrisome, from my point of view.
Typical limitation of liability clauses found in Free Software licenses
say something to effect of "no liability, unless required by law or
agreed to in writing".
This clause, instead, seems to say that, if any limitation of liability
is unenforceable, then, boom!, the whole grant of permission is void.
This could discriminate against people living in jurisdictions where
local law forbids too extreme limitations of liability.
If this is the case, then it fails DFSG#5.

[...]
> THIS MATERIAL MAY NOT BE USED, RELEASED, TRANSFERRED,
> IMPORTED,
> EXPORTED AND/OR RE-EXPORTED IN ANY MANNER PROHIBITED UNDER ANY
> APPLICABLE LAWS,
> INCLUDING U.S. EXPORT CONTROL LAWS REGARDING SPECIFICALLY DESIGNATED
> PERSONS,
> COUNTRIES AND NATIONALS OF COUNTRIES SUBJECT TO NATIONAL SECURITY
> CONTROLS.

Enforcing export control laws (or other laws), through a copyright
license is not a good thing to do, IMHO.
I think that, if I violate some export control law, I should be
prosecuted for breaching that law, without *also* having to face
copyright violation suits.

[...]
> This license forms the entire agreement regarding the subject matter
> hereof and
> supersedes all proposals and prior discussions and writings between the
> parties
> with respect thereto.

It really seems that no other grant of permission may be considered
valid...

> This license does not affect any ownership,
> rights, title,
> or interest in, or relating to, this material.

I think that this means that, if I hold some right (e.g.: copyright)
on a part of the work, then I am not constrained by the license, for
that part of the work.
This seems to be superfluous to say.

[...]
> All disputes
> arising out
> of this license shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the federal and
> state
> courts in Austin, Texas, and all defenses are hereby waived concerning
> personal
> jurisdiction and venue of these courts.

This is a choice of venue clause.
Choice of venue clauses are controversial and have been discussed to
death in the past on debian-legal: my personal opinion is that they
fail to meet the DFSG.

-- 
 New location for my website! Update your bookmarks!
 http://www.inventati.org/frx
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-boinc-devel/attachments/20100101/ebbc4d3b/attachment.pgp>