Difference between Scintilla's license and ISC

Difference between Scintilla's license and ISC

[Nicolas Goaziou]

Hello,

In bug#36043 (<https://issues.guix.info/issue/36043>), we discuss an
issue about the license used in Scintilla. More specifically, the
question is: 

  Does Scintilla desserve its own license in license.scm, or should it
use ISC?

For the record, the Scintilla license is:

    License for Scintilla and SciTE

    Copyright 1998-2002 by Neil Hodgson <neilh@scintilla.org>

    All Rights Reserved 

    Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and
    its documentation for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted,
    provided that the above copyright notice appear in all copies and
    that both that copyright notice and this permission notice appear in
    supporting documentation.

    NEIL HODGSON DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE,
    INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS, IN
    NO EVENT SHALL NEIL HODGSON BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INDIRECT OR
    CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS
    OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT,
    NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION
    WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.

and the ISC license is:

    License text

    Copyright <YEAR> <OWNER>

    Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for
    any purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the
    above copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all
    copies.

    THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL
    WARRANTIES WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED
    WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
    AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL
    DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA
    OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER
    TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR
    PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.

WDYT?

Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Goaziou

Re: Difference between Scintilla's license and ISC

[Andreas Enge]

Hello,

I think that the Scintilla license is non-free...

On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 01:24:15PM +0200, Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
>     Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and
>     its documentation for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted,
> 
> and the ISC license is:
>     Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for
>     any purpose with or without fee is hereby granted,

Notice the lack of the little word "with" in the first license.

Andreas

Re: Difference between Scintilla's license and ISC

[Ricardo Wurmus]

Andreas Enge <andreas@enge.fr> writes:

> I think that the Scintilla license is non-free...
>
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 01:24:15PM +0200, Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
>>     Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and
>>     its documentation for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted,
>> 
>> and the ISC license is:
>>     Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for
>>     any purpose with or without fee is hereby granted,
>
> Notice the lack of the little word "with" in the first license.

Interestingly, Debian includes Scite which includes code under the
Scintilla license (see bottom):

   https://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs//main/s/scite/scite_3.7.2-1_copyright

-- 
Ricardo

Re: Difference between Scintilla's license and ISC

[Giovanni Biscuolo]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1406 bytes --]

Hello Guix!

Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net> writes:

> Andreas Enge <andreas@enge.fr> writes:
>
>> I think that the Scintilla license is non-free...
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 01:24:15PM +0200, Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
>>>     Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and
>>>     its documentation for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted,
>>> 
>>> and the ISC license is:
>>>     Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for
>>>     any purpose with or without fee is hereby granted,
>>
>> Notice the lack of the little word "with" in the first license.
>
> Interestingly, Debian includes Scite which includes code under the
> Scintilla license (see bottom):
>
>    https://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs//main/s/scite/scite_3.7.2-1_copyright

The correct license name is "Historical Permission Notice and
Disclaimer", thanks to Wikipedia [1]

This is the GNU entry:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#HPND

the approved text is here:
https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:HPND
and Scintilla uses that text AFAIU

I've added HPND to our gnu/licenses.scm and sent a patch, bug number
#36295; give me a go/no go please :-) (I can push it if needed)

Happy Guix! Gio'.


[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scintilla_(software)

-- 
Giovanni Biscuolo

Xelera IT Infrastructures

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 832 bytes --]

Re: Difference between Scintilla's license and ISC

[Andreas Enge]

Hello!

I do not get why the license can be free with the non-commercial clause.
What am I misunderstanding?

Andreas

Re: Difference between Scintilla's license and ISC

[Giovanni Biscuolo]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1306 bytes --]

Hello Andreas,

unfortunately the discussion process for OSI approval of the HPND [1]
license was practically null :-), so I cannot find more info about that
specific "without fee" in the license

There isn't discussion on https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:HPND
also

Andreas Enge <andreas@enge.fr> writes:

> I do not get why the license can be free with the non-commercial
> clause.

At first I was also tricked to understand "without fee" to mean
non-commercial, precisely that "without fee" is related to "distribute
this software".

Reading the first sentence four times, we can also read "without fee"
related to "Permission to..." **and** "use, copy, modify and distribute"
"for any purpose", including commercial one

Anyway I agree with Bruce Dodson [1]:
«The notice has ambiguities that make it hard to recommend»

> What am I misunderstanding?

The above one is my personal interpretation of the ambiguity coming from
"without fee", anyway the fact that this license is GNU and OSI approved
(as GPL compatible one, also) is a guarantee :-)

...and is Historical! :-D

HTH! Gio'.


[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20190620074602/http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:sss:6305:jggiiehpeekebdbmpopm

-- 
Giovanni Biscuolo

Xelera IT Infrastructures

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 832 bytes --]