After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 84804 - License and copyright not properly assigned.
License and copyright not properly assigned.
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: pkg-config
Classification: Deprecated
Component: general
unspecified
Other All
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: Havoc Pennington
Luis Villa
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2002-06-10 22:22 UTC by hugo
Modified: 2004-12-22 21:47 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: 2.0



Description hugo 2002-06-10 22:22:28 UTC
From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
Subject: pkg-config
To: James Henstridge <james@daa.com.au>, Tim Janik <timj@gtk.org>
to: Havoc Pennington <hp@redhat.com>
cc: hugo@gnu.org, rms@gnu.org
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 04:11:46 -0600 (MDT)
Reply-to: rms@gnu.org

pkg-config is trying to be free software, but the implementation
of that has some serious problems.  hgayosso@gnu.org reports:

    I found that a file called COPYING is included in the distribution and
    it contains the GNU GPL, but some files like:

      pkg.c
      parse.c
      main.c

    do not contain any copyright or licensing notice.  I guess this makes
    them non-free software because there is no explicit permission to use,
    copy or redistribute them.

He is right--without notices giving permission to copy and change them,
it is copyright infringement to do so.  He continues,

    I also found other files that contain the following notice:

    /* (C) 1998 Red Hat Software, Inc. -- Licensing details are in the COPYING
       file accompanying popt source distributions, available from 
       ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/code/popt */


    I guess this is not acceptable because if the user can't get to that
    FTP site and find the file 'COPYING', then he/she will have absolutely
    no idea under which license those files are released, also it presents
    a moving target, because in 1998 it might be the GNU GPL, but today it
    could be a proprietary license (unlikely, but an option).

He is right on all this count also--and the problem is not just hypothetical;
it has already happened.  He says there is no file at that URL.

You can resolve these problems simply by putting the proper copyright
and license notices on each source file.  Hugo thinks that the license
intended to be at that URL was the one below.  After you verify that,
would you please put the license into each of the source files?  Then
the programs will be free software and there will be no risk of losing
track of the license accidentally.  The problem will be completely
solved.

Please respond and tell us how you are solving the problem.



Copyright (c) 1998  Red Hat Software

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in
all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT.  IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
X CONSORTIUM BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN
AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN
CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

Except as contained in this notice, the name of the X Consortium shall not be
used in advertising or otherwise to promote the sale, use or other dealings
in this Software without prior written authorization from the X Consortium.
Comment 1 Luis Villa 2002-06-12 16:53:23 UTC
Taking the liberty of marking 'high'.
Comment 2 Havoc Pennington 2002-09-06 20:16:04 UTC
Fixed
Comment 3 hugo 2002-09-21 00:35:18 UTC
The files:

$ find . \( -type f -exec grep -q "Licensing details are in the
COPYING" {} \;  \) -exec ls -d {} \;

./popthelp.c
./poptint.h
./poptconfig.c
./findme.h
./popt.h
./poptparse.c


still contain the notice:

/* (C) 1998 Red Hat Software, Inc. -- Licensing details are in the COPYING
   file accompanying popt source distributions, available from 
   ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/code/popt */
Comment 4 James Henstridge 2003-02-22 03:08:07 UTC
Havoc: what do you think about adding the proposed copyright text to
the tops of the popt files.  I can do this if you don't have time to
do so.

I checked the latest popt distribution, and it matches the text Hugo
pasted.  I also posted a bug against popt to fix up the copyright
headers upstream here:
    http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84853
Comment 5 jbj 2003-02-22 03:40:12 UTC
popt source code has an X11 license.
Comment 6 Havoc Pennington 2003-02-22 05:05:48 UTC
Fixing this would be appreciated, thanks a lot.
Comment 7 James Henstridge 2003-02-22 06:01:56 UTC
the copy of popt in the pkg-config cvs repository has been updated to
include the full license in the comments at the start of each file.