guix-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Jam: which licence is this?


From: Ricardo Wurmus
Subject: Re: Jam: which licence is this?
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2021 22:49:49 +0200
User-agent: mu4e 1.4.15; emacs 27.2


Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant@debian.org> writes:

On 2021-04-25, Jack Hill wrote:
I'm working on packaging the Argyll Color Management System for Guix. To build, it uses the Jam tool, which has the following license:

```
This is Release 2.5 of Jam, a make-like program.

License is hereby granted to use this software and distribute it freely, as long as this copyright notice is retained and modifications
are clearly marked.

ALL WARRANTIES ARE HEREBY DISCLAIMED.
```

Permission to use, check.
Permission to study, probably(?)
Permission to share, check.
Permission to modify, .... ?

Is it even free software? There is no mention of modification which
doesn't appear to be free by my layman's reading...


Which brings up an ugly bag of worms regarding boost...

The jam build system in boost is also licensed under the Boost license:

The build system source is under tools/build/src/engine/, and the jam.cpp file has these notes:

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
/*
* /+\
* +\ Copyright 1993-2002 Christopher Seiwald and Perforce Software, Inc.
* \+/
*
* This file is part of jam.
*
* License is hereby granted to use this software and distribute it freely, as * long as this copyright notice is retained and modifications are clearly
* marked.
*
* ALL WARRANTIES ARE HEREBY DISCLAIMED.
*/

/* This file is ALSO:
* Copyright 2001-2004 David Abrahams.
* Copyright 2018 Rene Rivera
* Distributed under the Boost Software License, Version 1.0.
* (See accompanying file LICENSE_1_0.txt or copy at
* http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt)
*/
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

FWIW I consider the Jam license to be free; it does mention modifications and only asks that they are “clearly marked” (whatever that means). It’s much saner than the LaTeX license that asks that any modified file be renamed; it is only acceptable to the FSF license team because TeX has an aliasing mechanism, so it’s not a practical obstacle, merely a serious annoyance.

--
Ricardo



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]