Go to:
Gentoo Home
Documentation
Forums
Lists
Bugs
Planet
Store
Wiki
Get Gentoo!
Gentoo's Bugzilla – Attachment 298175 Details for
Bug 397833
ipadic license is not included with the free software licenses
Home
|
New
–
[Ex]
|
Browse
|
Search
|
Privacy Policy
|
[?]
|
Reports
|
Requests
|
Help
|
New Account
|
Log In
[x]
|
Forgot Password
Login:
[x]
LICENSE.Fedora in their RPM for mecab-ipadic-2.7.0
LICENSE.Fedora (text/plain), 4.75 KB, created by
Ulrich Müller
on 2012-01-07 09:30:26 UTC
(
hide
)
Description:
LICENSE.Fedora in their RPM for mecab-ipadic-2.7.0
Filename:
MIME Type:
Creator:
Ulrich Müller
Created:
2012-01-07 09:30:26 UTC
Size:
4.75 KB
patch
obsolete
>=============================================== > Mar 9th, 2007 > Written by Mamoru Tasaka > <mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp> > > Clarification of the license of mecab-ipadic > on Fedora >=============================================== > >The English version of the license of mecab-ipadic >(which is included as "LICENSE.en" in this rpm ) >contains the part which came from ICOT Free software >license, which contains the following paragraph. >----------------------------------------------- >Each User may also freely distribute the Program, whether in its >original form or modified, to any third party or parties, PROVIDED >that the provisions of Section 3 ("NO WARRANTY") will ALWAYS appear >on, or be attached to, the Program, which is distributed substantially >in the same form as set out herein and that such intended >distribution, if actually made, will neither violate or otherwise >contravene any of the laws and regulations of the countries having >jurisdiction over the User or the intended distribution itself. >----------------------------------------------- >At the time I was writing this document, debian regarded >mecab-ipadic as NON-free as they judged this paragraph problematic. > >So I asked Mr. Tom "spot" Callaway if this software can be >legally accepted, and he asked FSF (The Free Software >Foundation) if they can accept this license as free. >The opinion of FSF on this passage was as below. >----------------------------------------------- >Debian's beef is with the following paragraph of the license: > ><This part is the same as the above paragraph> > >They have two complaints. I've given my thoughts on both, but I can't >make a final determination on either; that would be for RMS and Eben. > >* They believe that when the license talks about something being > "distributed substantially in the same form as set out herein," it's > referring to the program -- implying that you can't radically alter > the software (i.e., take a piece of it and incorporate it in some > totally different software). I understand why they think that. On > the other hand, I'm skeptical that this is the licensor's intent; I > think they just want to keep you from messing up the warranty > disclaimer too much. Unusually for Debian, apparently nobody tried to > clear this up with the original authors. It might be worthwhile to > try that. As it stands, I think we'd want to steer clear as well, as > we did with the original Artistic license. > >* They object to the requirement that you follow the law. I'm not sure > if we have a general policy on this, but I know we've accepted similar > restrictions as being free before (the Intel Open Source License has > similar, though narrower, language), so I think we would still > consider the license free as well even with this text. > >If you can get some kind of clarification on the first point, I'd be >happy to escalate this for further discussion. >----------------------------------------------- >So Mr Callaway asked me to clarify the intend of the original author >with respect to the word "substantially". > >However, according to the original Japanese version of >this license (which is included as "LICENSE.jp.html" in this rpm), >the part of the license which corresponds to the ICOT license >paragraph, which contains the words "substantially", reads >as below (in English): >----------------------------------------------- >Each user of this program may freely use, modify and make a copy of >this program. "To modify this program" used herein includes >* to improve or to extend this program to make it better its > function, performance, and the quality >* to add programs and documents you created by yourself, >however, it ("to modify this program") is not limited to the above. > >Each user of this program may distribute to others >this program itself, or the modified version of this program, >provided >* the section three ("no warranty") of this license is > included in it, >freely as long as the distribution won't violate the laws >which may relate to the distribution. >----------------------------------------------- >So as mecab developers mention, who maintain mecab-ipadic >software currently, and also in my opinion, it does not seem >to appear in the Japanese license the part which corresponds to >the words "substantially in the same form". And in the Japanese >license it is mentioned what to call "the modified version", which >declares that the original developer imposes no limitation >for modifying this software. > >Mr Callaway finally declared this license OK for Fedora >on Mar 8th, 2007. >----------------------------------------------- >This is good. Add a text file which says exactly what you just said as >LICENSE.Fedora, include it in %doc, and it is ok for Fedora. > >~spot >-----------------------------------------------
You cannot view the attachment while viewing its details because your browser does not support IFRAMEs.
View the attachment on a separate page
.
View Attachment As Raw
Actions:
View
Attachments on
bug 397833
: 298175 |
298177
|
298179