IANAL, but the upstream license was changed to "non commercial". [0] I do not understand, how it is possible with gpl3, but there is a long discussion about this at debian [1]. To be on the safe side, we could add attribution to NC in the LICENCE variable. Should we provide an ebuild for the last FOSS version of geogebra? [0] http://www.geogebra.org/download/license.txt [1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=692728 from _LICENSE.txt: === LICENSE 1) GeoGebra Source Code License: GNU General Public License v3 or later 2) GeoGebra Language Files, Documentation, and Installers License: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 or later Note for Non-commercial Users (e.g private, schools, or universities) You may use and distribute GeoGebra free of charge at home, in school and universities under the conditions explained below. Note for Commercial Users (e.g. publishers or online schools) If you would like to use GeoGebra applets, installers, or documentation for commercial purposes and put the resulting work under your copyright (e.g. for books, online courses, or on websites under your own copyright), you can do so by setting up a collaboration agreement with GeoGebra. Please write to office@geogebra.org for details and we will help you to find a simple and good solution for your specific projects.
It is possible if they own the copyright to the code in its entirety.
geogebra-4.1.120.0 (only version currently in the tree) still seems to be under a free license: (In reply to Jonas Stein from comment #0) > from _LICENSE.txt: > > 1) GeoGebra Source Code License: > GNU General Public License v3 or later > > 2) GeoGebra Language Files, Documentation, and Installers License: > Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 or later This would correspond to GPL-3+ CC-BY-SA-3.0. After reading the complete discussion in the Debian bug, the situation for later versions is still not clear to me. Upstream license terms don't help but rather add to the confusion. For example, what does "distribute for non-commercial use" mean? Copyright is about distribution, not about usage.
(In reply to Jonas Stein from comment #0) > Should we provide an ebuild for the last FOSS version of geogebra? I am not sure what this exactly means. You want to provide me new ebuild for new version or geogebra? Or I should do it? Anyway please send me version bump bug for it. I will see what I can do. > > [0] http://www.geogebra.org/download/license.txt > [1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=692728 > > > from _LICENSE.txt: > > === > > LICENSE > > 1) GeoGebra Source Code License: > GNU General Public License v3 or later > > 2) GeoGebra Language Files, Documentation, and Installers License: > Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 or later > > Note for Non-commercial Users (e.g private, schools, or universities) > You may use and distribute GeoGebra free of charge at home, > in school and universities under the conditions explained below. > > Note for Commercial Users (e.g. publishers or online schools) > If you would like to use GeoGebra applets, installers, or documentation > for commercial purposes and put the resulting work under your copyright > (e.g. for books, online courses, or on websites under your own copyright), > you can do so by setting up a collaboration agreement with GeoGebra. > Please write to office@geogebra.org for details and we will help you to > find a simple and good solution for your specific projects. Well I think that actual license in tree is correct. At least for that version. Amy
As to my current understanding: * One cannot say "if you use this non-commercially, it's GPL, else not" because that limits the GPL branch to things the GPL itself denies limiting too, e.g. restricting (non-DRM) use. * Companies keep advertising like that so that more people end up signing commercial contracts with them while they would not really have to.
PS: As a result, I believe "GPL-3+ CC-BY-SA-3.0" (and just that) is what we need here.
Note that the README claims that there's a license file under "desktop/src/main/resources/org/geogebra/desktop/_license.txt" according to: https://github.com/geogebra/geogebra/blob/9bdf66054a880c819cb5b74df106421b7f673adc/README#L10 This is incorrect because there's no such file under "desktop/src/main/resources/org/geogebra/desktop/_license.txt". However, there's a file under "desktop/src/gpl/resources/org/geogebra/desktop/_license.txt" (s/main/gpl/) but this file isn't a license at all: https://github.com/geogebra/geogebra/blob/9bdf66054a880c819cb5b74df106421b7f673adc/desktop/src/gpl/resources/org/geogebra/desktop/_license.txt To be on the safe side, shall we just at the "GeoGebra Non-Commercial License Agreement" to the tree and add a message about commercial use in pkg_postinst? I personally doubt they can enforce it given it's GPL, but this way we can take the burden off ourselves.
(In reply to Göktürk Yüksek from comment #6) > To be on the safe side, shall we just at the "GeoGebra Non-Commercial > License Agreement" to the tree and add a message about commercial use in > pkg_postinst? I personally doubt they can enforce it given it's GPL, but > this way we can take the burden off ourselves. I think that https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=692728#37 is a good analysis of the situation, especially the two choices there: "(a) I can conclude that GeoGebra is actually GPLv3 and strike out the rest of the licence terms. Anyone can use GeoGebra for commercial or non-commercial purposes; it's Free Software. (b) I can conclude that GeoGebra is *not* available under the GPLv3 as there are additional restrictions in force. Unfortunately, that means that GeoGebra is instead under a GPL-incompatible licence." Apparently, distributing the software under self-contradictory license terms as in (b) is not feasible. (This doesn't necessarily imply that (a) is feasible, though.) Upstream clarifies in https://www.geogebra.org/cms/license#FAQ that "the source code is licensed under the GNU General Public License" and that only the installers and web services are affected by different license terms. Is our ebuild completely independent of their installer?
(In reply to Ulrich Müller from comment #7) > Upstream clarifies in https://www.geogebra.org/cms/license#FAQ that "the > source code is licensed under the GNU General Public License" and that only > the installers and web services are affected by different license terms. Is > our ebuild completely independent of their installer? No, the ebuild compiles from source using gradle. However, there's still some ambiguity. The resource files for the GUI are licensed with their 'GeoGebra Non-Commercial License Agreement' (https://github.com/geogebra/geogebra/blob/master/desktop/src/nonfree/resources/org/geogebra/desktop/_license.txt). I'm not sure how it applies to binary distros like debian but I'd argue in our case, due to the source based nature, that the EULA should be added to the tree as usual and the ebuild should mention it along with the GPL and CC. The user has the GPL freedom with the code but the resource files require accepting the GPL.
commit 6d90d1c3901b0cb93f5f82f59f2a9af26aa9412a Author: Göktürk Yüksek <gokturk@gentoo.org> Date: Wed Mar 8 04:41:42 2017 -0500 sci-mathematics/geogebra: bump to 5.0.339.0_p20170308 #596140 #556278
