GNU bug report logs - #43975
[PATCH 0/1] gnu: Add ccal [And asking for help on license issue].

Previous Next

Package: guix-patches;

Reported by: pengmeiyu <at> riseup.net

Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2020 08:11:01 UTC

Severity: normal

Tags: patch

Done: Marius Bakke <marius <at> gnu.org>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 43975 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 43975 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

View this report as an mbox folder, status mbox, maintainer mbox


Report forwarded to guix-patches <at> gnu.org:
bug#43975; Package guix-patches. (Tue, 13 Oct 2020 08:11:01 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to pengmeiyu <at> riseup.net:
New bug report received and forwarded. Copy sent to guix-patches <at> gnu.org. (Tue, 13 Oct 2020 08:11:01 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: pengmeiyu <at> riseup.net
To: guix-patches <at> gnu.org
Cc: Peng Mei Yu <pengmeiyu <at> riseup.net>
Subject: [PATCH 0/1] gnu: Add ccal [And asking for help on license issue].
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2020 16:09:15 +0800
From: Peng Mei Yu <pengmeiyu <at> riseup.net>

Hi everyone,

This patch adds ccal, a program for Chinese calendar.  This program has a
weird license issue.

The program's original license was GPL v2+, then the author changed part of
the source code to LGPL under the request of third-party users.  You can find
the email discussion here:
https://github.com/liangqi/kcalendar/blob/c77098a1f3133878743632cdd5788377161610a1/README#L57

The problem is within the LGPL license notice in source code.  The LGPL
license published by FSF can be one of three choices:

- GNU Library General Public License, version 2.0
- GNU Lesser General Public License, version 2.1
- GNU Lesser General Public License, version 3.0

1. In the license notice sections of source code, the author wrote:

mphases.cpp:
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
   Distributed under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License as
   published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the
   License, or (at your option) any later version.
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

"GNU Lesser General Public License" and "version 2" is not a valid
combination. "GNU Lesser General Public License" can be either version 2.1 or
version 3.0.

2. In the README file, the author also missspelled "GNU Lesser General Public
License".  "GNU Less General Public License" is not a valid license name.

README:
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License as
published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the
License, or (at your option) any later version. Portions related to
computing of Chinese dates are distributed under the terms of the GNU
Less General Public License as published by the Free Software
Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option)
any later version.
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

3. The COPYING.LESSER file bundled with source code is a copy of LGPL v3.

This is a total mess.

I think the author's intention was to release the code with "GNU Library
General Public License, version 2.0 or any later version".  However what he
wrote in the code is "GNU Lesser General Public License as published by the
Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option)
any later version."  I think LGPL v2.1 and v3.0 is compatible with this
sentence.  But I am not sure if "GNU Library General Public License, version
2.0" can be considered compatible.  I am in no way familiar with the western
legal system, so this is only my personal opinion.

The GNU.org webset lists "GNU Library General Public License, version 2.0" as
an old version of "GNU Lesser General Public License":
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/old-licenses.html
Does that mean the FSF thinks "GNU Library General Public License, version
2.0" is equal to "GNU Lesser General Public License, version 2.0"?  Will this
hold in a court?

What's your opinion?

Thanks in advance.




Information forwarded to guix-patches <at> gnu.org:
bug#43975; Package guix-patches. (Tue, 13 Oct 2020 08:24:02 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #8 received at 43975 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Peng Mei Yu <pengmeiyu <at> riseup.net>
To: 43975 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Cc: Peng Mei Yu <pengmeiyu <at> riseup.net>
Subject: [PATCH 1/1] gnu: Add ccal.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2020 16:22:16 +0800
* gnu/packages/calendar.scm (ccal): New variable.
---
 gnu/packages/calendar.scm | 41 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 41 insertions(+)

diff --git a/gnu/packages/calendar.scm b/gnu/packages/calendar.scm
index 9987ae1bf8..0123f75c1b 100644
--- a/gnu/packages/calendar.scm
+++ b/gnu/packages/calendar.scm
@@ -9,6 +9,7 @@
 ;;; Copyright © 2020 Marius Bakke <mbakke <at> fastmail.com
 ;;; Copyright © 2020 Brendan Tildesley <mail <at> brendan.scot>
 ;;; Copyright © 2020 Tanguy Le Carrour <tanguy <at> bioneland.org>
+;;; Copyright © 2020 Peng Mei Yu <pengmeiyu <at> riseup.net>
 ;;;
 ;;; This file is part of GNU Guix.
 ;;;
@@ -339,3 +340,43 @@ DebConf, FrOSCon, Grazer LinuxTage, and the CCC congresses.
 ConfClerk is targeted at mobile devices but works on any system running Qt.")
     (license (list license:gpl2+
                    license:lgpl3)))) ; or cc-by3.0 for src/icons/*
+
+(define-public ccal
+  (package
+    (name "ccal")
+    (version "2.5.3")
+    (source (origin
+              (method url-fetch)
+              (uri (string-append "http://ccal.chinesebay.com/ccal/ccal-"
+                                  version ".tar.gz"))
+              (sha256
+               (base32
+                "15nza1d1lvk3dp0wcl53wsd32yhbgyzznha092mh5kh5z74vsk1x"))))
+    (build-system gnu-build-system)
+    (arguments
+     '(#:phases
+       (modify-phases %standard-phases
+         (replace 'configure
+           (lambda* (#:key outputs #:allow-other-keys)
+             (let ((out (assoc-ref outputs "out")))
+               (substitute* "Makefile"
+                 (("/usr/local/bin")
+                  (string-append out "/bin"))
+                 (("/usr/local/man")
+                  (string-append out "/share/man"))))
+             #t))
+         (add-after 'install 'install-manuals
+           (lambda _
+             (invoke "make" "install-man"))))
+       ;; no tests
+       #:tests? #f))
+    (home-page "http://ccal.chinesebay.com/ccal/ccal.htm")
+    (synopsis "Command line program for Chinese calendar")
+    (description "@code{ccal} is a command line program which writes a
+Gregorian calendar together with Chinese calendar to standard output.  Its
+usage is similar to the cal program generally available on Unix platforms.  In
+addition to console output, it can also generate Encapsulated Postscript and
+HTML table outputs for use in do-it-yourself calendars and web pages.  It
+supports both simplified and traditional Chinese characters.")
+    (license (list license:gpl2+
+                   license:lgpl2.1+))))
-- 
2.28.0





Reply sent to Marius Bakke <marius <at> gnu.org>:
You have taken responsibility. (Sun, 18 Oct 2020 21:53:02 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Notification sent to pengmeiyu <at> riseup.net:
bug acknowledged by developer. (Sun, 18 Oct 2020 21:53:02 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #13 received at 43975-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Marius Bakke <marius <at> gnu.org>
To: Peng Mei Yu <pengmeiyu <at> riseup.net>, 43975-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Cc: Peng Mei Yu <pengmeiyu <at> riseup.net>
Subject: Re: [bug#43975] [PATCH 1/1] gnu: Add ccal.
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2020 23:51:53 +0200
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Peng Mei Yu <pengmeiyu <at> riseup.net> writes:

> * gnu/packages/calendar.scm (ccal): New variable.

Applied with minor tweaks to the description (@command markup), and
with a comment regarding the licenses.  Thank you!
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

bug archived. Request was from Debbugs Internal Request <help-debbugs <at> gnu.org> to internal_control <at> debbugs.gnu.org. (Mon, 16 Nov 2020 12:24:09 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

This bug report was last modified 4 years and 276 days ago.

Previous Next


GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.