On Sat, 2008-01-12 at 14:45 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > Package: libofx > Severity: serious > > Hi > > (a bug to not forget this issue, together with the reject of the newer > version from NEW). > > this package contains non-free files, the DTDs, at least those from the > OFX standard, have a non-free license and can't be in main. > > ---+++ > A royalty-free, worldwide, and perpetual license is hereby granted to > any party to use the Open Financial Exchange Specification to make, > use, and sell products and services that conform to this Specification. > +++--- > > Doesnt fit DFSG 1 and 3 *at least*, you aren't allowed to modify and to > redistribute. There is more, but this is enough already.
I have received the following from the OFX Consortium in clarification of the license. I believe that with this clarification, it does meet the DFSG. Can you advise whether it would be accepted on this basis or whether particular further negotiation is necessary? ==== With regard to your statement that your software "does not necessarily implement every detail of the OFX specification" (in other words, is a subset of OFX), this is ok as it would still "conform" to the OFX spec in every regard implemented. However, it is not legal to create a different DTD based on OFX and put that forth as OFX. You would have to represent your derived DTD as your own and not official OFX. Alternatively, if you use the XML Schema instead of the DTD you could create new types that inherit from OFX types and again as long as these are not represented as actual OFX that's ok. The bottom line seems to be that it is fine if you use OFX technology as long as you do not represent your own enhanced version (added to or changed) as official "OFX". ==== I believe that this guidance satisfies the requirements of the DFSG, imposing only the requirement that if a modified version does not implement the OFX spec, it's fine, provided it isn't labelled as OFX. With this understanding of what constitutes "use...that conform[s] to this Specification" I think we are in clear ground. You had expressed concerns about DFSG #1 and #3. I'm not sure what the #1 concern was because there was no prohibition on selling or giving away the stuff even in the most restrictive reading of the OFX license. It was #3 which clearly had a problem, namely, the apparent restriction on derivative works. The apparent restriction that it could only be used in things which implement OFX would have violated #3, #6, and perhaps #8. But the guidance from OFX quoted above clarifies this in a way which should avoid any problem. They are interpreting conformity with the spec as meaning "doesn't claim to implement OFX unless it really does". For example, fileutils is in conformity with OFX, under the reading they have given. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
