Re: Calibre

[Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org>]

Andreas Enge <andreas@enge.fr> writes:

> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 12:02:00AM -0500, Mark H Weaver wrote:
>> The calibre source tarball contains non-free software.  Debian
>> distributes their own excerpted source tarball instead, with the
>> src/unrar, src/calibre/ebooks/markdown, and resources/viewer/mathjax
>> directories removed, as well as src/odf/thumbnail.py.
>
> Amazing, thanks for looking into it. How do you find out which files
> debian drops?

I downloaded Debian's 'dfsg' source tarball, and the upstream source
tarball, and used 'diff' to find the diferences.

> I suppose that a "dfsg" in the package name is a warning
> sign?

Yes, although in many cases it is because the GNU Free Documentation
License doesn't comply with Debian's DFSG when invariant sections are
used.

> This is even more surprising as there is the file COPYRIGHT
> in the distribution, which diligently lists the licenses of lots of
> packages, except apparently for the non-free ones...

Debian's copyright file only lists the licenses of what they included in
their source package, so anything they removed is not included.

>> (2) src/calibre/ebooks/markdown/serializers.py license includes the text:
>> 
>> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
>>   # By obtaining, using, and/or copying this software and/or its
>>   # associated documentation, you agree that you have read, understood,
>>   # and will comply with the following terms and conditions:
>>   #
>>   # Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and
>>   # its associated documentation for any purpose and without fee is
>>   # hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice appears in
>>   # all copies, and that both that copyright notice and this permission
>>   # notice appear in supporting documentation, and that the name of
>>   # Secret Labs AB or the author not be used in advertising or publicity
>>   # pertaining to distribution of the software without specific, written
>>   # prior permission.
>> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
>> 
>>     I'm not as confident that this one is a problem, partly because I
>>     guess it is probably unenforceable, but the first paragraph is
>>     attempting to put a restriction on use.  They are saying that you're
>>     not even allowed to use this software unless you have "read,
>>     understood, and will comply with ...".
>
> I suppose that the first sentence merely states "the following license
> is valid", so I do not think it is a real problem. One always needs to
> comply with the license, no?

No.  Normally one only has to comply with the license if you do
something that would violate copyright law, e.g. redistribution.

      Mark