On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 02:25:45PM +0200, Pierre Gruet wrote:
> Source: libfonts-java
> Version: 1.1.6.dfsg-3
> Severity: serious
> Tags: bullseye sid stretch buster
> Justification: Policy 2.2.1
>
> Dear Maintainer,
>
> The file patches/itext-1.5.2.patch incorporates a non-free license, stating
>
> Sun Microsystems grants you ("Licensee") a non-exclusive, royalty free,
> license
> to use, modify and redistribute this software in source and binary code form,
> provided that i) this copyright notice and license appear on all copies of the
> software; and ii) Licensee does not utilize the software in a manner which is
> disparaging to Sun Microsystems.
>
> This breaks at least DFSG-6, due to the "disparaging to Sun Microsystems"
> clause.
Hi Pierre,
A couple of comments:
1) In that patch file, I see:
> Some classes in iText are based on code samples provided by SUN.
> A copyright notice is always included in the source code of the specific
> class.
> The license is either SUN's samples license (1), or the license marked with
> (2)
> ...
The non-DFSG phrase referring to "disparaging" is from SUN's samples
license (1). License (2) (again, merely quoting that sun.txt file)
includes the problematic clause:
> You acknowledge that Software is not designed,licensed or intended for use in
> the design, construction, operation or maintenance of any nuclear facility.
However, when I search the patch, the Java source files included don't
refer to either of those licenses explicitly. The only file that does
include a copyright and license statement is DFSG-free, but I'm not sure
about the other files.
2) I'm wondering what such a clause would mean anyway now that "Sun
Microsystems" is defunct since 2010. How would a licensee disparage a
non-existent entity?
My second question is more just wondering what happens... I guess we
will have to figure out the files that are (presumably) licensed under
the problematic licenses.
Cheers,
tony
