From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Jun 14 08:33:26 2018 Received: (at 31798) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Jun 2018 12:33:26 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47396 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1fTRRO-0000BI-4p for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 08:33:26 -0400 Received: from sender-of-o51.zoho.com ([135.84.80.216]:21101) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1fTRRM-0000BA-K9 for 31798@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 08:33:25 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1528979579; s=zoho; d=elephly.net; i=rekado@elephly.net; h=References:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-reply-to:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; l=2854; bh=xUa1G05s/UwUSIdfsxFL8+XqRmc7RIv2dgW6eI8fyq8=; b=ikdYYDr7GNcAGjskzXXemQsDfM0/ZhEA3woXguUk3d6yboz8/KQqlahlgQmUvAmT bvIz5iSAXqzAgqhdgqloqNky0DqUtltXCZWBuiHeVeUeLvMlr3uq2gG8/UtDhLZa4ZT Gw3e6yVjOQJnVPnsSQSO2mFrcXK8vaHYCIeo8yO0= Received: from localhost (141.80.245.154 [141.80.245.154]) by mx.zohomail.com with SMTPS id 1528979579893411.20179448857255; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 05:32:59 -0700 (PDT) References: <20180612112325.21668-1-rekado@elephly.net> <20180612184647.GA20407@jasmine.lan> User-agent: mu4e 1.0; emacs 26.1 From: Ricardo Wurmus To: Leo Famulari Subject: Re: [bug#31798] [PATCH] gnu: Add iozone. In-reply-to: <20180612184647.GA20407@jasmine.lan> X-URL: https://elephly.net X-PGP-Key: https://elephly.net/rekado.pubkey X-PGP-Fingerprint: BCA6 89B6 3655 3801 C3C6 2150 197A 5888 235F ACAC Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 14:32:57 +0200 Message-ID: <87a7rxblae.fsf@elephly.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-ZohoMailClient: External X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 31798 Cc: 31798@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) Hi Leo, > On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 01:23:25PM +0200, Ricardo Wurmus wrote: >> * gnu/packages/profiling.scm (iozone): New variable. > > Overall the package LGTM... > >> + (license (license:non-copyleft >> + "http://www.iozone.org/docs/Iozone_License.txt")))) > > The licensing is a little complicated: > > http://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs/non-free/i/iozone3/iozon= e3_429-3_copyright Oh, I must have misunderstood the license text: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- License to freely use and distribute this software is hereby granted by the author, subject to the condition that this copyright notice remains intact. The author retains the exclusive right to publish derivative works based on this work, including, but not limited to, revised versions of this work. --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- Does =E2=80=9Cexclusive right to publish derivative works=E2=80=9D means th= at people other than the author may not distribute modified variants of iozone? So the license only permits use and distribution of unmodified copies? Bummer :( I assumed that this sentence would just be an assertion of the original authors=E2=80=99 right to change the code as they please without having to = abide by the license themselves (in case they are no longer copyright holders), but the word =E2=80=9Cexclusive=E2=80=9D does seem to make this n= on-free. My interpretation seems to be backed by what the author wrote, as quoted in the Debian copyright file: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- The last time I spoke with Norcott I asked him about the intent of the license. He indicated that anyone could use it and distribute it for free. The idea of the later sentence was to protect Iozone so that if someone modified it, the original author would still have the right to publish future works that included any additions that anyone might have made. And, that all of the code that is in Iozone could be used by the original author in other projects that may or may not be freeware. Iozone's code is intended to be freely available. It would not be in the spirit of the license for someone to take the code out of Iozone, repackage it into a commercial package, re-license it or patent it, and then prevent the original author of Iozone from using his own code. --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- =E2=80=9Crepackage it into a commercial package=E2=80=9D again is a confusi= ng statement, because Free Software can be sold. Would the sale of a medium containing Iozone be considered a violation of the license=E2=80=A6? This is confusing enough to make me want to drop the patch :-/ Thanks for bringing this to our attention! -- Ricardo