Hello.

Tgif license is "Q Public License" version 1.0 .
This license is not DFSG-Free. (e.g libcwd)

Suggests:

1. Tgif move to non-free.
2. remove Tgif.

Thanks.

References:

http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/t/tgif/tgif_4.1.45-3/tgif.copyright
http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses#Q_Public_License_.28QPL.29.2C_Version_1.0
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00131.html

I beg to differ.  There are two different versions of tgif.  One is
licensed QPL and the other have a DFSG compatible license.  The Debian
package has been built from the non-QPL licensed code and non-DFSG bits
have been removed with the cooperation of the upstream author.

It has been so for more than a decade and therefore will stay in main.

Carlo

Hi Carlo,
I'm trying to fix https://bugs.debian.org/768690 and
I stumbled upon this bug. It seems to me that Mejiko
is actually right - even debian/copyright mentions that
code is under QPL. What is this "DFSG compatible license"
that you are talking about?

Cheers,
Tomasz

Hi Tomasz:

I am referring to the page below.

http://bourbon.usc.edu/tgif/download.html

he calls it free-of-charge butit is a license which was qualified as
acceptable when tgif was first put in the archive, before I adopted it.

If it is now not acceptable, perhaps it would be a good idea to discuss it
with the author who, in my experience, has been very willing to accomodate
my requests.

Carlo

Hi again Carlo,

If the license is the one here: http://bourbon.usc.edu/tgif/copyright.html
then the situation is even worse than with QPL:

"[...] and its documentation for *not-for-profit* purpose"
(emphasis is mine).

This is non-free: https://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html#no_commercial
So either:

   1) the license is QPL and in this case the situation
      is a bit ambiguous (but maybe it is ok, IANAL),
   2) or the license is "royalty-free" and then tgif is
      obviously non-free

Tomasz

Hi Tomasz,

My mistake, it is the QPL license that was originally used.  As I said
before, it was already in the archive when I adopted it.  Ilooked on the

https://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses

page and it still lists QPL v1.0 as unsettled.  In any case, I suppose I
caould ask Bill Chang whether he would consider changing his license to an
MIT license or something else.  It looks like the biggest concern is for
libraries though and this package does not provide any libraries.

Carlo