Package: lintian Version: 2.2.14 Severity: wishlist It would be useful to have lintian check for discrepancies in LGPL licensing; in particular check for the use of the non-existent licenses "Lesser GPL v2" and "Library GPL v2.1".
See the following attached e-mail for a example case. On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 3:29 AM, Adriaan de Groot<gr...@fsfeurope.org> wrote: > Hi Daniel, Mathew, > > The confusion seems to be the following: > - LGPL v. 2.1 is the *Lesser* GPL > - LGPL v. 2 is the *Library* GPL > > > You can find the texts of these licenses at > - http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-2.1.html > - http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/library.html > > > In general, writing "Library GPL v. 2.1" is accepted to mean "Lesser GPL v. > 2.1". I don't know if there's a consensus on other label+version mix-ups. So > if your program license headers refer to a version that technically does not > exist (i.e. Lesser GPL v. 2), as Daniel points out in icns_family.c, there is > technically a problem, but in practice there is not. > > It *is* in the interest of the copyright holders to have consistent licensing > across the entire library, so it would be good to pick one (either Library v. > 2 or Lesser v. 2.1) and write that in the headers. If the library portion of > lcns is intended to be under the Lesser General Public License v. 2.1 (or, at > your option, any later version) -- and Mathew indicates this in his message -- > it would be best to write that in the headers. That means changing the version > number in files referring to Lesser to version 2.1, and changing files still > licensed under the Library General Public License v. 2 (or, at your option, > any later version) to fall under the Lesser GPL v. 2.1 (or, at your option, > any later version). > > Having one single consistent license text makes things a lot easier both for > tools, lawyers and others to decide what's going on. Hence the suggestion to > fix it, but it's not a high priority. > > I would suggest the following course of action (not legal advice, just best > practices): > > - ping the developer list saying "The intention is to license under Lesser GPL > v. 2.1, but the wording is sometimes messy, like 'Library GPL v. 2.1' or > 'Lesser GPL v. 2'. We should make this text consistent." > - wait a week or so for anyone to come forward saying they really really meant > licensing under Library GPL v.2 or later and refuse to re-license. > - then update the license headers. > > Since the intention is clear and the LGPL v. 2.1 is written as a clarification > of terminology (and adds one clause related to linking) and drop-in successor > to the LGPL v. 2, this is a straightforward change. Not something to do during > otherwise hectic development, but good for a quiet time or during freeze > before a release (and CIA suggests that icns development is pretty quiet). > > > [ade], hoping he didn't make any mistakes in {Lesser,Library} v. {2,2.1} > > -- > [] Adriaan de Groot > [][][] Freedom Task Force, Free Software Foundation Europe > || http://blogs.fsfe.org/adridg/ > > Free Software Foundation Europe e.V. is a German Verein registered at > the Registergericht Hamburg (VR 17030). Its president is Karsten > Gerloff. For more information on FSFE, see http://fsfe.org. > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Mathew Eis <mat...@eisbox.net> Date: Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 3:18 AM Subject: Re: Inconsistency in License of files in libicns To: d...@uvic.ca Cc: f...@fsfeurope.org Hello Daniel, Thank you for contacting me. Unfortunately, I am a little confused by the nature of this e-mail, with the following link being the basis of our licensing for the library portion of libicns (largely the files that you note to be in error): http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-2.1.html The above clearly is the Lesser General Public License version 2.1 as published by GNU themselves, under which the library portion of libicns is intended to be published. I am a little confused as to why you say that "there is no Lesser General Public License version 2.1" Please let me know if there is something which I am misunderstanding, as I would most certainly be interested in addressing any licensing issues that libicns may have. Sincerely, -Mathew Eis On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 9:41 PM, D M German<d...@uvic.ca> wrote: > > Dear Mathew, > > I am a researcher doing analysis of licenses in Free and Open source > software, particularly those in Debian. > > In recent weeks we have discovered a minor inconsistency in many > projects and it is present in some of the libicns files authored by > you. > > I have been contacting developers in several FOSS projects to try to > address it. > > This is the license statement from file ./src/icns_family.c > > This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify > it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License as > published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the > License, or (at your option) any later version. > > > As you might know, there is no Lesser General Public License version > 2.1. its predecessor is the Library General Public License version 2. > > Several files in libicns contains the proper reference to the Library > GPL v2 (or any later version): > > ./icnsutils/png2icns.c > ./icnsutils/icns2png.c > ./icnsutils/icontainer2icns-v2.c > ./icnsutils/icontainer2icns.c > > But the following files contain the error above: > > ./src/icns_debug.c > ./src/icns_element.c > ./src/icns_family.c > ./src/icns_image.c > ./src/icns_io.c > ./src/icns_jp2.c > ./src/icns_rle24.c > ./src/icns_utils.c > > I have asked members of the Freedom Task Force of the Free Software > Foundation Europe (http://www.fsfe.org/projects/ftf/ftf.en.html, of > which I am also a member) and they concur that it is in the best > interest of the copyright owners to fix this issue (even though is > minor). > > thank you, > > --daniel > > -- > -- > Daniel M. German > http://turingmachine.org/ > http://silvernegative.com/ > dmg (at) uvic (dot) ca > replace (at) with @ and (dot) with . > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
