[Pkg-zenoss-team] [Zenoss] #1704: license problem: zenoss is not DFGS-free, the EULA is incompatible with the GPL license

Zenoss trac at zenoss.org
Fri Oct 10 18:45:23 UTC 2008


#1704: license problem: zenoss is not DFGS-free, the EULA is incompatible with the
GPL license
--------------------+-------------------------------------------------------
 Reporter:  zenoss  |           Owner:  edahl       
     Type:  defect  |          Status:  closed      
 Priority:  high    |       Milestone:  zenoss-2.0.1
Component:  All     |         Version:  2.0.0       
 Severity:  low     |      Resolution:  fixed       
 Keywords:          |   Documentation:  Not required
Installer:          |        Reviewed:  1           
--------------------+-------------------------------------------------------
Changes (by bbibeault):

  * documentation:  => Not required
  * reviewed:  => 1


Old description:

> I'm packaging Zenoss for Debian and I just discovered that the EULA of
> Zenoss
> is not DFSG-free (i.e. it does not meet the Debian Free Software
> Guidlines),
> find below the reasoning. As the very minimum that implies that Zenoss
> can't be
> part of Debian (in theory it can be part of the non-free section though),
> but
> in fact it seems that some of the points mentioned in the EULA are
> incompatible
> with the GPL license and that makes the whole Zenoss not redistributable
> at
> all. Since you are redistributing changes to other free software products
> that
> might (I haven't yet checked) also mean that you are violating the GPL.
>
> I believe these problems are not intentional and only related to bad
> wording of
> the EULA and I really hope we can solve this to see Zenoss in Debian!
>
>  * a first concern is about EULA acceptance by itself: you should not
> require a
>  user to agree with an EULA for a GPL program. In principle a user can do
>  basically anything with a GPL program, its usage is not restricted (the
> GPL
>  mainly restricts what can be done when ''redistributing'' a program
> ...).
>  Forbidding the usage via a EULA acceptance test is not acceptable and
> that is
>  what you are requiring: if a user does not accept the EULA he should
> stop
>  running Zenoss and remove it from its hard drive.  In fact, since the
> software
>  is GPL-ed, I as a Debian developer can even distribute in Debian a
> patched
>  version of Zenoss which skip the EULA acceptance test: what would be the
> point
>  then?
>
>  * another concern is about points 8(b) and 8(c) which is a form of
> "choice of
>  venue" which is not compatible with the GPL either
>
>  * export control (point 6) is useless, it's the "default", why
> specifying it?
>
>  * more generally a lot of the text in the EULA is advisory, what's the
> point of
>  having it there?
>
> A change that would solve all the problems for me as a packager would of
> course
> be to remove the EULA entirely. The additional requirement you have to
> the GPL
> should be specified in the LICENSE file together with the GPL, but beware
> that
> all the changes should be ''compatible'' with the GPL above and all the
> changes I mentioned above are, TTBOMK, not.
>
> Until this point are resolved I fear we can not upload the package in the
> official Debian archive and that's a pity, since the package is almost
> ready!
>
> I'm not a lawyer, but I asked the advice of some guys of the debian-legal
> mailing list and they agree with the problematic points above (in fact
> they
> finger-pointed them to me upon my request). If you want the above
> reasoning to be
> translated in legalese I can ask them to do that, but I'm sure you will
> understand the main issues already starting from this message.

New description:

 I'm packaging Zenoss for Debian and I just discovered that the EULA of
 Zenoss
 is not DFSG-free (i.e. it does not meet the Debian Free Software
 Guidlines),
 find below the reasoning. As the very minimum that implies that Zenoss
 can't be
 part of Debian (in theory it can be part of the non-free section though),
 but
 in fact it seems that some of the points mentioned in the EULA are
 incompatible
 with the GPL license and that makes the whole Zenoss not redistributable
 at
 all. Since you are redistributing changes to other free software products
 that
 might (I haven't yet checked) also mean that you are violating the GPL.

 I believe these problems are not intentional and only related to bad
 wording of
 the EULA and I really hope we can solve this to see Zenoss in Debian!

  * a first concern is about EULA acceptance by itself: you should not
 require a
  user to agree with an EULA for a GPL program. In principle a user can do
  basically anything with a GPL program, its usage is not restricted (the
 GPL
  mainly restricts what can be done when ''redistributing'' a program ...).
  Forbidding the usage via a EULA acceptance test is not acceptable and
 that is
  what you are requiring: if a user does not accept the EULA he should stop
  running Zenoss and remove it from its hard drive.  In fact, since the
 software
  is GPL-ed, I as a Debian developer can even distribute in Debian a
 patched
  version of Zenoss which skip the EULA acceptance test: what would be the
 point
  then?

  * another concern is about points 8(b) and 8(c) which is a form of
 "choice of
  venue" which is not compatible with the GPL either

  * export control (point 6) is useless, it's the "default", why specifying
 it?

  * more generally a lot of the text in the EULA is advisory, what's the
 point of
  having it there?

 A change that would solve all the problems for me as a packager would of
 course
 be to remove the EULA entirely. The additional requirement you have to the
 GPL
 should be specified in the LICENSE file together with the GPL, but beware
 that
 all the changes should be ''compatible'' with the GPL above and all the
 changes I mentioned above are, TTBOMK, not.

 Until this point are resolved I fear we can not upload the package in the
 official Debian archive and that's a pity, since the package is almost
 ready!

 I'm not a lawyer, but I asked the advice of some guys of the debian-legal
 mailing list and they agree with the problematic points above (in fact
 they
 finger-pointed them to me upon my request). If you want the above
 reasoning to be
 translated in legalese I can ask them to do that, but I'm sure you will
 understand the main issues already starting from this message.

--

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://dev.zenoss.org/trac/ticket/1704#comment:4>
Zenoss <http://dev.zenoss.org/>
Zenoss Monitoring System


More information about the Pkg-zenoss-team mailing list