Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 12:13:09 +0200
From: Gregor Hoffleit <hoffleit@mathi.uni-heidelberg.de>
To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Subject: [debian-python-request@lists.debian.org: Re: This license (JPython) acceptable ?]

Manoj suggested I should bring this to a broader audience, so here's an
excerpt of an posting to debian-policy:


Following up on my recent inquiry about the JPython license, here is
an update. Depending on the results of these issues, I will put the
package into main, contrib or non-free.


Judging from the repsonses, most of the JPython license seems to be
acceptable according to the terms of the DFSG.

There's one clause (8.) which can be ignored by removing a third-party
library from the packages (OROMatcher).

The real problem seems to be 3.iii:

   3. In the event Licensee, at its sole cost and expense, uses the
   Software to prepare a derivative work that is based on or incorporates
   the Software or any part thereof, and wants to make the derivative
   work available to the public for commercial or noncommercial purposes,
   or uses the software in this derivative form to provide a service to
   the public, then Licensee hereby agrees: (i) to indicate in any such
   work, in a prominently visible way, the specific modifications made to
   CNRI's Software; (ii) not to introduce deliberately any modifications
   where there is reason to believe they will be harmful to other users
   and their systems; and (iii) to notify CNRI of any release to the
   public of Licensee's derivative version, or any service offered to the
   public by Licensee based thereon.

It is not obvious whether this is compatible with the DFSG.

Therefore, I asked on the JPython list about the implications and
intentions of this clause. I got responses from both Jim Hugunin and
Guido van Rossum. Both told me that the intention of the license is
clearly to make JPython Open Source compliant, and that they are aware 
of problems with 3.iii and are working to get rid of them.

Then, I asked Eric Raymond on his position. He proposed dropping that
notification requirement or at least including a clear statement on
how this requirement can be fulfilled (e.g. an e-mail address for
sending the notifications to).


Judging from the discussions with Guido et al, I would think that we
are completely safe if I add an statement to
/usr/doc/jpython/copyright where I refer people that they can fulfill
this requirement with sending a mail to jpython@python.org. Would this 
be acceptable ?


	Gregor


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org