Tatan 1.0 - License Not Found

Removed, closing.

We should take this in consideration, I'm reopening this one:

http://changelogs.ubuntu.com/changelogs/pool/universe/t/tatan/tatan_1.0.dfsg1-1/tatan.copyright

As it was removed, priority is now minor.

Changed repo for adding Tatan again after reviewing it´s license (GPL)

Changing back to critical since the program is back in the repos.

Kour says it is repo but I have some questions about the licensing. According to the copyright file it says it is under something called the Yawaraka license. But then at the bottom it says the debian package is under the GPL. Now this Yawaraka license looks very permissive but isn't on the GNU license page so while it looks like free software I can't confirm it. This license problem needs to be fixed. Is it under this Yawaraka license or the GPL? If someone could please review this.

I should also ask why it was purged from all versions but dagda?

I have emailed name at domain for a consultation on if this "Yawaraka(flexible)" license is free or not. I will post when I receive a reply.

Even if they say that the license is free, and I suspect they will, it concerns me that the .orig.tar.gz contains binary files (Executables for Windows, Windows DLL files, and Microsoft Visual C libraries.)

Can you specifically mention which files you noticed. I will bring that up when they respond to me and ask for their recommendation.

This was the response I got:

=====================================================================
Hello and thank you for writing in. Also, thank you for working on
Trisquel (I'm writing this email on a Trisquel machine).

> I am a FSF member and work on Trisquel (one of the free GNU/Linux
> distros). I am requesting a license consult for this trisquel bug
> (https://trisquel.info/en/issues/1213). Apparently this program is
> licensed under something called the Yawaraka(flexible)" license. It
> is not on the GNU license page
> (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html).

It doesn't show up in the licensing archives either.

> The copyright file is located here
> (http://packages.trisquel.info/changelogs/pool/main/t/tatan/tatan_1.0.dfsg1-2/tatan.copyright)
> and I was wondering if I could get a consultation if that is
> considered a free software license. If it is NOT a free software
> license we need to remove the package from our repos but I wanted to
> get an informed opinion. I do not know enough about legal stuff to
> determine if something is free or non-free (I trust the FSF to make
> that determination).

Unfortunately, this is something we get a lot; instead of choosing a
well-known free software license, an author goes with a few lines of
friendly vernacular, and leaves everyone to guess what they really
meant. It seems like the Yawaraka License wants to be a free software
license, but "seems to" isn't exactly what you want to go to court with
to fight a copyright case.

I'm just a volunteer who helps answer questions, so I can't make a
decision on behalf of the FSF. I can ask to add this license to the
queue of licenses for review, but I really can't say if and when someone
from the FSF will get around to looking at it (the list is distressingly
long, and I hope that this issue will get attention somewhat faster
because this is a request from the Trisquel project, but once again, I
don't make those decisions.)

If your project guidelines are to accept only FSF-approved free software
licenses, then this isn't one of them. It isn't non-free either; it's
just that we don't know either way. Beyond that, it will also depends on
your project's appetite for legal risk. Some projects will decide to use
such code and take the chance while others won't touch code with unsure
licensing with the proverbial ten-foot pole.

I hope this sheds some like on the issue. I've tried to provide as much
information as possible, even if it isn't of much immediate help.

--
I am not a lawyer, the above is not legal advice

Regards, Yoni Rabkin

=====================================================================

So with that in mind we have a few options:

1) Leave the package as-is

2) Submit license for review with the FSF.

3) Remove the package.

4) Some combination of the above 3 items.

I personally vote for a combination of 2 and 3. My personal opinion when it comes to freedom issues is a "shoot first, ask questions later" type approach. If something is questionable I believe we should remove it and then only once it has been verified to pass muster should it be added back in. That is the stance we are taking with Google's chromium browser and I believe it is the stance we should take here. I will also post this to the dev list.

(Disclaimer: IANAL of course)

I can't really see a problem with this license. It looks like a real permissive attribution-required license. I'm not 100% clear on Trisquel's own license policy but the FSDG (http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html) don't specifically seem to mandate FSF-approved licenses, only free licenses. The clause "If you have not done any modifications, you can freely distribute without problems" looks scary because it seems to imply that there'd be "problems" with distributing modified copies, but the license states very plainly that "You can freely modify and redistribute it" earlier in the text. The second clause, "If you could make a cool modification, please tell me via mail or by any other means. Let me enjoy your changes too" by my understanding doesn't create an obligation to send the author modified versions, it's simply a request. Unless Trisquel's policy is to firmly stick to FSF-approved licenses I'd say there's no problem keeping it. Again, IANAL.

Adrian I agree with everything you said except your conclusion. I agree, from my point of view it looks like a free software license. But at the same time IANAL as well. However, there can be a difference between actually being a free software license and looking like a free software license. If you look at the license page non free section some are considered non-free because of vague language and stuff like that.

So while I agree it does look and probably is but at the end of the day we are not 100% sure. So even if there is a tiny tiny tiny chance this license is non-free just because of of the way it is worded IMO we should get it reviewed. I don't think we should just say "oh two non-lawyers think it is free so it should be ok."

Edit (important): You should also note that in the copyright file the license is translated (from what appears to be japanese). We also don't know if something was lost in translation or if the translator made a mistake. Maybe the license really does require you to email the copyright holder for changes rendering it non-free and the English translation is wrong. That is another risk.

Marking as fixed.

Package is purged

Automatically closed -- issue fixed for 2 weeks with no activity.