[cmucl-imp] Debian bug 821150: problems with the PCL license [resend]
Hello team, I fear that someone noticed a problem with the license of the PCL files in cmucl. The license reads (for example from https://gitlab.common-lisp.net/cmucl/cmucl/blob/master/src/pcl/boot.lisp): > ;;; ************************************************************************* > ;;; Copyright (c) 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990 Xerox Corporation. > ;;; All rights reserved. > ;;; > ;;; Use and copying of this software and preparation of derivative works > ;;; based upon this software are permitted. Any distribution of this > ;;; software or derivative works must comply with all applicable United > ;;; States export control laws. > ;;; > ;;; This software is made available AS IS, and Xerox Corporation makes no > ;;; warranty about the software, its performance or its conformity to any > ;;; specification. > ;;; * ;;; Any person obtaining a copy of this software is requested to send their * ;;; name and post office or electronic mail address to: * ;;; CommonLoops Coordinator * ;;; Xerox PARC * ;;; 3333 Coyote Hill Rd. * ;;; Palo Alto, CA 94304 * ;;; (or send Arpanet mail to CommonLoops-Coordinator.pa@Xerox.arpa) * ;;; * ;;; Suggestions, comments and requests for improvements are also welcome. > ;;; ************************************************************************* the problem is the part marked by *, this is a requirement not compatible with the DFSG. In addition the email and I guess address is dead. I've noticed that sbcl never had this clause, and I assume that we can remove it without someone complaining? Best regards, Peter -- signature -at- pvaneynd.mailworks.org http://www.livejournal.com/users/pvaneynd/ "God, root, what is difference?" Pitr | "God is more forgiving." Dave Aronson|
What’s the problem with the clause? Since it’s a “request”, it’s completely optional. So essentially a no op. But I personally wouldn’t be changing someone else’s license clauses without very explicit permission to do so. I’d probably just put a note below the license documenting that the contact info is dead as of whatever date you tried. Michael McDonald mikemac@mikemac.com > On Jun 10, 2016, at 8:04 AM, Peter Van Eynde <pvaneynd@mailworks.org> wrote: > > Hello team, > > I fear that someone noticed a problem with the license of the PCL files > in cmucl. The license reads (for example from > https://gitlab.common-lisp.net/cmucl/cmucl/blob/master/src/pcl/boot.lisp): > >> ;;; ************************************************************************* >> ;;; Copyright (c) 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990 Xerox Corporation. >> ;;; All rights reserved. >> ;;; >> ;;; Use and copying of this software and preparation of derivative works >> ;;; based upon this software are permitted. Any distribution of this >> ;;; software or derivative works must comply with all applicable United >> ;;; States export control laws. >> ;;; >> ;;; This software is made available AS IS, and Xerox Corporation makes no >> ;;; warranty about the software, its performance or its conformity to any >> ;;; specification. >> ;;; > * ;;; Any person obtaining a copy of this software is requested to send > their > * ;;; name and post office or electronic mail address to: > * ;;; CommonLoops Coordinator > * ;;; Xerox PARC > * ;;; 3333 Coyote Hill Rd. > * ;;; Palo Alto, CA 94304 > * ;;; (or send Arpanet mail to CommonLoops-Coordinator.pa@Xerox.arpa) > * ;;; > * ;;; Suggestions, comments and requests for improvements are also > welcome. >> ;;; ************************************************************************* > > the problem is the part marked by *, this is a requirement not > compatible with the DFSG. In addition the email and I guess address is > dead. > > I've noticed that sbcl never had this clause, and I assume that we can > remove it without someone complaining? > > Best regards, Peter > > > > -- > signature -at- pvaneynd.mailworks.org > http://www.livejournal.com/users/pvaneynd/ > "God, root, what is difference?" Pitr | "God is more forgiving." Dave > Aronson| > _______________________________________________ > cmucl-imp mailing list > cmucl-imp@lists.zs64.net > https://lists.zs64.net/mailman/listinfo/cmucl-imp
"Michael" == Michael McDonald <mikemac@mikemac.com> writes:
Michael> What’s the problem with the clause? Since it’s a Michael> “request”, it’s completely optional. So essentially a no Michael> op. Michael> But I personally wouldn’t be changing someone else’s Michael> license clauses without very explicit permission to do Michael> so. I’d probably just put a note below the license Yeah, I don't want to change some one else's license. That clause has been in there since the original checkin in 1990. And I agree; it's a request, not a requirement. -- Ray
Hello Michael and friends, On 10/06/16 17:53, Michael McDonald wrote:
What’s the problem with the clause? Since it’s a “request”, it’s completely optional. So essentially a no op.
"I am not a lawyer" and "English is not my native language", but for example the text "Send me a postcard if you like this software.", which to me sounds like an even more vague request, has been declared as problematic. As I understand it if the license were to use rfc2119 then there would be less of a problem, but standard English is too vague. See also https://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html
But I personally wouldn’t be changing someone else’s license clauses without very explicit permission to do so. I’d probably just put a note below the license documenting that the contact info is dead as of whatever date you tried.
Agreed, however as Stas noted the SBCL people just removed the clause as it is 'dead'. Adding a note would not help with the DFSG. If the clause is not removed (either directly or by declaring to use the SBCL PCL version) then cmucl will get pulled from Debian, and probably as a consequence from the other Linux distributions. However SBCL would remain in Debian and the other distributions. Best regards, Peter -- signature -at- pvaneynd.mailworks.org http://pvaneynd.dreamwidth.org/ God, root, what is difference?-Pitr|God is more forgiving.-Dave Aronson|
Peter Van Eynde <pvaneynd@mailworks.org> wrote:
On 10/06/16 17:53, Michael McDonald wrote:
Whatâs the problem with the clause? Since itâs a ârequestâs completely optional. So essentially a no op.
"I am not a lawyer" and "English is not my native language", but for example the text "Send me a postcard if you like this software.", which to me sounds like an even more vague request, has been declared as problematic. As I understand it if the license were to use rfc2119 then there would be less of a problem, but standard English is too vague.
See also https://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html
But I personally wouldnât be changing someone elseâs license clauses without very explicit permission to do so. Iâd probably just put a note below the license documenting that the contact info is dead as of whatever date you tried.
Agreed, however as Stas noted the SBCL people just removed the clause as it is 'dead'. Adding a note would not help with the DFSG.
Have you tried sending email to ...@xerox.com ? I guess somebody could email Daniel Bobrow, he is still at PARC. Robert Swindells
"Peter" == Peter Van Eynde <pvaneynd@mailworks.org> writes:
Peter> Hello Michael and friends, Peter> On 10/06/16 17:53, Michael McDonald wrote: >> What’s the problem with the clause? Since it’s a “request”, >> it’s completely optional. So essentially a no op. Peter> "I am not a lawyer" and "English is not my native Peter> language", but for example the text "Send me a postcard if Peter> you like this software.", which to me sounds like an even Peter> more vague request, has been declared as problematic. As I Peter> understand it if the license were to use rfc2119 then there Peter> would be less of a problem, but standard English is too Peter> vague. Peter> See also https://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html >> But I personally wouldn’t be changing someone else’s license >> clauses without very explicit permission to do so. I’d probably >> just put a note below the license documenting that the contact >> info is dead as of whatever date you tried. Peter> Agreed, however as Stas noted the SBCL people just removed Peter> the clause as it is 'dead'. Adding a note would not help It wasn't removed. It got moved somewhere else. SBCL still has the same problem. Seems really disingenous to say cmucl will be removed because of the clause but sbcl will not. You can't just go willy-nilly changing other people's licenses. -- Ray, who is not a lawyer.
[Using the right Email account this time to reply - Mike] If whoever is making a stink about that clause can’t distinguish between a requirement and a request, then there’s not much hope of a successful resolution. I’d think the “Any distribution of this software or derivative works MUST comply with all applicable United States export control laws” clause would be a much bigger issue as it actually states a requirement that “limits” your “freedom” per the way the DFSG FAQ explains their thinking.. So specifically, DFSG 12-A-a “Send me a postcard if you like this software” is probably the what someone is using. This phrasing is a requirement because it’s worded as something that’s not optional. But, 12-A-d says “(But a request rather than a demand is fine.)” is OK. So the Xerox request should be fine. If they won’t accept it for whatever inconsistent reasoning, then your options are 1) Don’t use PCL anymore and replace or rewire it with something you hope they’ll like better 2) Replace the CMUCL version with the SBCL version. 3) Realize you can’t can’t please everyone and give up on Debian Personally, from a strict legal point of view (I’m not a lawyer either. But my Dad was a contracts lawyer who’s legal thinking rubbed off on us), I’d think #2 would be full of potential problems. Not that I think Xerox would come looking for you. Anyway, your best hope is to point out “is requested” is a request and not a demand and that makes the license acceptable under their philosophy as explained in 12-A-d. And 12-A-b. Michael McDonald mikemac@mikemac.com
On Jun 11, 2016, at 7:38 AM, Raymond Toy <toy.raymond@gmail.com> wrote:
"Peter" == Peter Van Eynde <pvaneynd@mailworks.org> writes:
Peter> Hello Michael and friends, Peter> On 10/06/16 17:53, Michael McDonald wrote:
What’s the problem with the clause? Since it’s a “request”, it’s completely optional. So essentially a no op.
Peter> "I am not a lawyer" and "English is not my native Peter> language", but for example the text "Send me a postcard if Peter> you like this software.", which to me sounds like an even Peter> more vague request, has been declared as problematic. As I Peter> understand it if the license were to use rfc2119 then there Peter> would be less of a problem, but standard English is too Peter> vague.
Peter> See also https://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html
But I personally wouldn’t be changing someone else’s license clauses without very explicit permission to do so. I’d probably just put a note below the license documenting that the contact info is dead as of whatever date you tried.
Peter> Agreed, however as Stas noted the SBCL people just removed Peter> the clause as it is 'dead'. Adding a note would not help
It wasn't removed. It got moved somewhere else. SBCL still has the same problem. Seems really disingenous to say cmucl will be removed because of the clause but sbcl will not.
You can't just go willy-nilly changing other people's licenses.
-- Ray, who is not a lawyer.
_______________________________________________ cmucl-imp mailing list cmucl-imp@lists.zs64.net https://lists.zs64.net/mailman/listinfo/cmucl-imp
"Michael" == Michael McDonald <mikemac@mikemac.com> writes:
Michael> 1) Don’t use PCL anymore and replace or rewire it with Michael> something you hope they’ll like better Michael> 2) Replace the CMUCL version with the SBCL version. I still think sbcl's version is polluted in the same way, so I don't see that as helping. Just because you removed the clause from the files doesn't make it so. I think other free lisps like gcl and ecl use pcl, so they're also polluted. I think clisp is the only free lisp that doesn't use pcl. -- Ray
On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 6:04 PM, Peter Van Eynde <pvaneynd@mailworks.org> wrote: > Hello team, > > I fear that someone noticed a problem with the license of the PCL files > in cmucl. The license reads (for example from > https://gitlab.common-lisp.net/cmucl/cmucl/blob/master/src/pcl/boot.lisp): > > > ;;; > ************************************************************************* > > ;;; Copyright (c) 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990 Xerox Corporation. > > ;;; All rights reserved. > > ;;; > > ;;; Use and copying of this software and preparation of derivative works > > ;;; based upon this software are permitted. Any distribution of this > > ;;; software or derivative works must comply with all applicable United > > ;;; States export control laws. > > ;;; > > ;;; This software is made available AS IS, and Xerox Corporation makes no > > ;;; warranty about the software, its performance or its conformity to any > > ;;; specification. > > ;;; > * ;;; Any person obtaining a copy of this software is requested to send > their > * ;;; name and post office or electronic mail address to: > * ;;; CommonLoops Coordinator > * ;;; Xerox PARC > * ;;; 3333 Coyote Hill Rd. > * ;;; Palo Alto, CA 94304 > * ;;; (or send Arpanet mail to CommonLoops-Coordinator.pa@Xerox.arpa) > * ;;; > * ;;; Suggestions, comments and requests for improvements are also > welcome. > > ;;; > ************************************************************************* > > the problem is the part marked by *, this is a requirement not > compatible with the DFSG. In addition the email and I guess address is > dead. > > I've noticed that sbcl never had this clause, and I assume that we can > remove it without someone complaining? > > SBCL has this: https://github.com/sbcl/sbcl/blob/6910703602e75291d637eaf0d13d17f311be7c3e/CREDITS#L51 -- With best regards, Stas.
So, what's the verdict on this? I do hope this can be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 8:04 AM, Peter Van Eynde <pvaneynd@mailworks.org> wrote: > Hello team, > > I fear that someone noticed a problem with the license of the PCL files > in cmucl. The license reads (for example from > https://gitlab.common-lisp.net/cmucl/cmucl/blob/master/src/pcl/boot.lisp): > > > ;;; > ************************************************************************* > > ;;; Copyright (c) 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990 Xerox Corporation. > > ;;; All rights reserved. > > ;;; > > ;;; Use and copying of this software and preparation of derivative works > > ;;; based upon this software are permitted. Any distribution of this > > ;;; software or derivative works must comply with all applicable United > > ;;; States export control laws. > > ;;; > > ;;; This software is made available AS IS, and Xerox Corporation makes no > > ;;; warranty about the software, its performance or its conformity to any > > ;;; specification. > > ;;; > * ;;; Any person obtaining a copy of this software is requested to send > their > * ;;; name and post office or electronic mail address to: > * ;;; CommonLoops Coordinator > * ;;; Xerox PARC > * ;;; 3333 Coyote Hill Rd. > * ;;; Palo Alto, CA 94304 > * ;;; (or send Arpanet mail to CommonLoops-Coordinator.pa@Xerox.arpa) > * ;;; > * ;;; Suggestions, comments and requests for improvements are also > welcome. > > ;;; > ************************************************************************* > > the problem is the part marked by *, this is a requirement not > compatible with the DFSG. In addition the email and I guess address is > dead. > > I've noticed that sbcl never had this clause, and I assume that we can > remove it without someone complaining? > > Best regards, Peter > > > > -- > signature -at- pvaneynd.mailworks.org > http://www.livejournal.com/users/pvaneynd/ > "God, root, what is difference?" Pitr | "God is more forgiving." Dave > Aronson| > _______________________________________________ > cmucl-imp mailing list > cmucl-imp@lists.zs64.net > https://lists.zs64.net/mailman/listinfo/cmucl-imp > -- Ray
Hello Ray, With the holidays this problem dragged on too long, sorry for that. On 12/07/16 17:17, Raymond Toy wrote:
So, what's the verdict on this? I do hope this can be resolved to everyone's satisfaction.
I asked the bug submitter for comments, but got no feedback. So I intend to add a description of the situation to the documentation and mark the bug as 'fixed' by this addition. What I want to add is:
Copyright of PCL:
;;; ************************************************************************* ;;; Copyright (c) 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990 Xerox Corporation. ;;; All rights reserved. ;;; ;;; Use and copying of this software and preparation of derivative works ;;; based upon this software are permitted. Any distribution of this ;;; software or derivative works must comply with all applicable United ;;; States export control laws. ;;; ;;; This software is made available AS IS, and Xerox Corporation makes no ;;; warranty about the software, its performance or its conformity to any ;;; specification. ;;; ;;; Any person obtaining a copy of this software is requested to send their ;;; name and post office or electronic mail address to: ;;; CommonLoops Coordinator ;;; Xerox PARC ;;; 3333 Coyote Hill Rd. ;;; Palo Alto, CA 94304 ;;; (or send Arpanet mail to CommonLoops-Coordinator.pa@Xerox.arpa) ;;; ;;; Suggestions, comments and requests for improvements are also welcome. ;;; *************************************************************************
This last part is considered a request, not an obligation by the community. The email address is no longer in operation and as far as we know nobody at Xerox is working on PCL anymore.
You can ignore this request.
Would it make sense to create a newer version then 21a? Best regards, Peter -- signature -at- pvaneynd.mailworks.org http://pvaneynd.dreamwidth.org/ God, root, what is difference?-Pitr|God is more forgiving.-Dave Aronson|
participants (5)
-
Michael McDonald -
Peter Van Eynde -
Raymond Toy -
Robert Swindells -
Stas Boukarev