| | [ Return to Bugs & Features | Roadmap 2.0 | SVN ⇄ GIT ]
STR #2198
| Application: | FLTK Library |
|---|
| Status: | 1 - Closed w/Resolution |
|---|
| Priority: | 2 - Low, e.g. a documentation error or undocumented side-effect |
|---|
| Scope: | 3 - Applies to all machines and operating systems |
|---|
| Subsystem: | Documentation |
|---|
| Summary: | Please change fltk2 license |
|---|
| Version: | 2.0-current |
|---|
| Created By: | dfiloni |
|---|
| Assigned To: | matt |
|---|
| Fix Version: | 2.0-current |
|---|
| Update Notification: | |
|---|
Trouble Report Files:
Trouble Report Comments:
| |
| #1 | dfiloni
06:03 May 05, 2009 |
| The fltk2 license is "May 2001" but the fltk1.1 license is "December 2001". The "May 2001" license cannot be approved in Debian and so the fltk2 Debian package cannot be uploaded. Please change the license to "December 2001" (fltk1.1). | |
| |
| #2 | dejan
12:42 May 17, 2009 |
| Can you elaborate, what is the problem in the license? I suppose the problem is in terminology (ie. "derived" vs "derivative") as I cannot see any significant difference. | |
| |
| #3 | dfiloni
12:51 May 17, 2009 |
| It's a decision of a discussion in the debian-legal mailing list, you can read it at: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2009/03/msg00098.html
Take a special look at: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2009/03/msg00163.html | |
| |
| #4 | medigeek
15:07 Jul 08, 2009 |
| Hi, is there a reason that ftlk project uses a custom version of "GPL"?
I'm not an expert, but can't you just use:
- LGPLv3? http://www.opensource.org/licenses/lgpl-3.0.html
or
- 3-clause BSD license? http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php | |
| |
| #5 | AlbrechtS
03:07 Sep 04, 2009 |
| Hi, all,
I'd like to bring this license issue one step further. Although I'm not a FLTK 2 developer, I took the time to work out a patch [1] for the FLTK 2 license, and I hope that this will be confirmed by the team.
Mike Sweet wrote in fltk.development on May 18, 2009 [2]: "Yes, FLTK2 should be using the same license as FLTK1. Go ahead and make the change..."
Thus, I tried to update the FLTK 2 license so that it uses practically the same text as the current FLTK 1 license. I also changed the date(s) and some typos (?), e.g. Licence -> License. I'm aware that there are differences between British and American writing, but I think that at least where the (L)GPL is mentioned, we should use the _correct_ writing "License".
What we need now is still:
- confirmation of FLTK 2 developers, or probably Mike, Matt ?
- confirmation of the Debian team, if this would suit their needs.
One more point I'd like to have confirmed it that IMHO the new license text should include the _current_ date of its release, so that we would have to modify this again in the patch (before commit) to make it current.
And: which "version number" will this new/amended license have? I used "2a" in the patch, but this might not be what we want.
Please confirm or propose changes. I'm willing to update the subversion repository, if and _only_ if I can get confirmation from the FLTK and the Debian team.
---------------------------------------------------------------
[1] http://www.fltk.org/strfiles/2198/license.diff
[2] http://www.fltk.org/newsgroups.php?gfltk.development+v:7749 | |
| |
| #6 | matt
06:08 Sep 04, 2009 |
| OK from my side. Thanks for taking care of this. I would like to get the license change so that FLTK2 can be distributed with new distros. | |
| |
| #7 | ucko.debian
11:59 Sep 04, 2009 |
| I'm only involved in packaging 1.x (not 2.x), but I believe Albrecht's patch does the job. | |
| |
| #8 | dfiloni
02:11 Sep 09, 2009 |
| I think the proposed patch does the job too. | |
| |
| #9 | matt
00:17 Sep 10, 2009 |
| Updated license to remain in the spirit of the original FLTK 2 license, but at the same time complying to Debian license requirements. | |
[ Return to Bugs & Features ]
|
| |
