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

[Steve Langasek]

On Fri, Jan 01, 2010 at 03:13:58PM -0800, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> On Friday 01 January 2010 2:57:18 pm Francesco Poli wrote:
> > > /* ============================================================
> > > 
> > > 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.

> What?! The grant is /right/ there... "Redistribution and use of this
> material is permitted" provided the following criteria are met, and then
> it lists the criteria. I suppose it could be its own little bullet point,
> but that sure seems explicit to me. That you failed to see that as a grant
> really calls into question the neutrality of the rest of your license
> evaluation.

The grant covers redistribution and use.  It's my understanding that neither
"redistribution" nor "use" encompasses modifications under copyright law,
and Debian has consistently required an explicit grant of permission to
modify and to distribute the resulting modified works in order to be
considered DFSG-compliant.

> > > 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.
> 
> Not saying I disagree, but your position on how export laws should be
> enforced really isn't at issue here. The problem AMD is addressing here is
> third party liability if someone where to violate US export laws. Is this
> clause really any different than "you aren't allowed to do anything
> illegal with this software?"

No, it's not different at all - and a license that says "you aren't allowed
to do anything illegal with this software" is *not* DFSG-compliant.  Civil
disobedience should not result in violations of the copyright licenses of
software in Debian.

> And, if so, does the DFSG really prohibit a developer from proscribing the
> use in that manner and thus exposing the developer to a whole RANGE of
> contributory liability?

Yes, it really does (assuming there's any contributory liability to be found
here, anyway).

> > 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.

> A fight that has been lost many times... choice of venue is fine.

Yes.  I don't like choice of venue clauses, but the project has decided they
are acceptable, and it's not appropriate to inject one's personal dissenting
opinions into a license analysis on this list.

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek at ubuntu.com                                     vorlon at debian.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 827 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-boinc-devel/attachments/20100101/5914d727/attachment.pgp>