DFSG-compatibility of a overly short license [tensorflow dependency]

[Lumin]

Hi debian-legal,

The license for the last libtensorflow.so dependency is very confusing
because it looks quite incomplete, or exetremely overly simplified.

https://github.com/tensorflow/tensorflow/blob/master/third_party/fft2d/LICENSE
You may use, copy, modify this code for any purpose and
without fee. You may distribute this ORIGINAL package.

Is this a free software license? Is it DFSG-compatible?
It doesn't tell me any detail and looks incomplete.

Thanks in advance.

[Tobias Frost]

Post by Lumin
Hi debian-legal,
The license for the last libtensorflow.so dependency is very confusing
because it looks quite incomplete, or exetremely overly simplified.

https://github.com/tensorflow/tensorflow/blob/master/third_party/fft2d/LICENSE
You may use, copy, modify this code for any purpose and
without fee. You may distribute this ORIGINAL package.

Is this a free software license? Is it DFSG-compatible?
It doesn't tell me any detail and looks incomplete.

It seems to miss the right to distribute when modifications have been
made.

Post by Lumin
Thanks in advance.

[Gunnar Wolf]

Post by Lumin
Hi debian-legal,
The license for the last libtensorflow.so dependency is very confusing
because it looks quite incomplete, or exetremely overly simplified.

https://github.com/tensorflow/tensorflow/blob/master/third_party/fft2d/LICENSE
You may use, copy, modify this code for any purpose and
without fee. You may distribute this ORIGINAL package.

Is this a free software license? Is it DFSG-compatible?
It doesn't tell me any detail and looks incomplete.
Thanks in advance.

Almost, I would say, but IMO most definitively not.

It allows people to modify the code, but NOT distribute the
modifications (there is emphasis in ORIGINAL).

[Andrej Shadura]

Post by Gunnar Wolf

Post by Lumin
Hi debian-legal,
The license for the last libtensorflow.so dependency is very confusing
because it looks quite incomplete, or exetremely overly simplified.

https://github.com/tensorflow/tensorflow/blob/master/third_party/fft2d/LICENSE
You may use, copy, modify this code for any purpose and
without fee. You may distribute this ORIGINAL package.

Is this a free software license? Is it DFSG-compatible?
It doesn't tell me any detail and looks incomplete.
Thanks in advance.

Almost, I would say, but IMO most definitively not.
It allows people to modify the code, but NOT distribute the
modifications (there is emphasis in ORIGINAL).

I don’t think that’s the intention, and it is probably covered by
"modify <…> for any purpose" (e.g. modify for the purpose of further
redistribution).

[Andrej Shadura]

Post by Andrej Shadura

Post by Gunnar Wolf

Post by Lumin
Hi debian-legal,
The license for the last libtensorflow.so dependency is very confusing
because it looks quite incomplete, or exetremely overly simplified.

https://github.com/tensorflow/tensorflow/blob/master/third_party/fft2d/LICENSE
You may use, copy, modify this code for any purpose and
without fee. You may distribute this ORIGINAL package.

Is this a free software license? Is it DFSG-compatible?
It doesn't tell me any detail and looks incomplete.
Thanks in advance.

Almost, I would say, but IMO most definitively not.
It allows people to modify the code, but NOT distribute the
modifications (there is emphasis in ORIGINAL).

I don’t think that’s the intention, and it is probably covered by
"modify <…> for any purpose" (e.g. modify for the purpose of further
redistribution).
You may use, copy, modify and distribute this code for any
purpose (include commercial use) and without fee. Please
refer to this package when you modify this code.

In my opinion it is quite clear it is not disallowing redistributing
modifications.

[Ian Jackson]

Post by Andrej Shadura

Post by Andrej Shadura
You may use, copy, modify and distribute this code for any
purpose (include commercial use) and without fee. Please
refer to this package when you modify this code.

Oh good.

Post by Andrej Shadura
In my opinion it is quite clear it is not disallowing redistributing
modifications.

Please replace the licence text in the package with the text fromk the
web page, and leave some notes in debian/ in the source package about
when you retrieved the web page (and, ideally, a copy of the page).

You probably also want to send a patch to upstream to fix the LICENSE
file to agree with the website.

Ian.

[Gunnar Wolf]

Post by Andrej Shadura

Post by Gunnar Wolf

Post by Lumin

https://github.com/tensorflow/tensorflow/blob/master/third_party/fft2d/LICENSE
You may use, copy, modify this code for any purpose and
without fee. You may distribute this ORIGINAL package.

Is this a free software license? Is it DFSG-compatible?
It doesn't tell me any detail and looks incomplete.
Thanks in advance.

Almost, I would say, but IMO most definitively not.
It allows people to modify the code, but NOT distribute the
modifications (there is emphasis in ORIGINAL).

I don’t think that’s the intention, and it is probably covered by
"modify <…> for any purpose" (e.g. modify for the purpose of further
redistribution).

In any case, it would make the license text ambiguous and
self-contradictory.

[Ben Finney]

Post by Lumin
The license for the last libtensorflow.so dependency is very confusing
because it looks quite incomplete, or exetremely overly simplified.

Thank you for naming the specific software package, and showing the
complete license text.

Post by Lumin

https://github.com/tensorflow/tensorflow/blob/master/third_party/fft2d/LICENSE
You may use, copy, modify this code for any purpose and
without fee. You may distribute this ORIGINAL package.

There are no restrictions specified (so we have only the restrictions
from copyright law). That explains, I think, the extreme brevity of the
text: it grants freedoms without specifying any conditions.

The license to redistribute in source or binary form is unconditionally
granted (required for DFSG §2).

The license to modify is unconditionally granted (required for DFSG §3).

However, the license to redistribute derived works is not granted (this
violates DFSG §3). By the deliberately emphasised “ORIGINAL package”,
this is apparently a deliberate exclusion on the part of the authors of
this text.

Post by Lumin
Is this a free software license? Is it DFSG-compatible?

By this analysis, the work is not DFSG-compatible and is not free software.