On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 18:24:55 +0800 Thomas Goirand <tho...@goirand.fr> wrote:
> > What matters is what is claimed as the licence for the code itself, not > > how that licence is or is not described on a website. > > But the license file refers to the website... Here's the main part of > its content: > > Open Source License > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Ext is licensed under the terms of the Open Source GPL 3.0 license. > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html That's wrong for starters - the licence at that URL is the GNU General Public Licence. If there is an "Open Source GPL 3.0 licence" it does not exist at the URL quoted. I doubt GNU would take kindly to being renamed "Open Source". > There are several FLOSS exceptions available for use with this release for > open source applications that are distributed under a license other than > the GPL. > > * Open Source License Exception for Applications > > http://extjs.com/products/floss-exception.php > > * Open Source License Exception for Development > > http://extjs.com/products/ux-exception.php Those exceptions need to be assessed separately and clarification sought from upstream as to whether these exceptions always apply if the package is distributed under the GPL3 or only apply if the distributor chooses to use them. > Commercial License > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This is the appropriate option if you are creating proprietary > applications and you are > not prepared to distribute and share the source code of your application > under the > GPL v3 license. Please visit http://extjs.com/license for more details. This is dual-licensing and this commercial licence is therefore irrelevant for Debian - the alternative licence should probably be retained but I defer to ftp-master or debian-legal for a definitive answer on that. With a dual or tri licensed package, the alternative licences do not affect each other, each distributor is allowed to use whichever licence is most suitable to their needs - in our case, presumably, GPL3. > OEM / Reseller License > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > For more details, please visit: http://extjs.com/license. > > As you see, even the license.txt is kind of wrong and doesn't cut/past > the necessary parts of the GPL v3. Yes, so that should be fixed with upstream before packaging for Debian so that the licensing is clear. Comments in the source code would be the best place for the GPLv3 declaration - as usual, alongside the Copyright statements. It appears to be tri-licensed - the only issue is whether the exceptions quoted under the "GPL section" always apply or are optional additions. The second and third licensing arrangements have no effect on the "GPL section". > > If the claims on the website are retained into the licensing of the > > software, then the software would seem to be non-distributable as the > > licence (taken as a whole, the additional claims and the main licence) > > is in conflict. > > What if the license.txt is like above? Get upstream to fix it and clarify it. > > If the software comes with an unaltered copy of the GPL3 and no other > > conditions, then the website claims can be deemed misleading but > > are irrelevant to the software to be packaged for Debian. > > The software comes with NO COPY AT ALL of the GPL3. Just a link to it as > per above. Then upstream should add one and clarify the licensing arrangements. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
pgpWDBhnD7Yim.pgp
Description: PGP signature
