[argyllcms] Re: Packaging aryllcms for distros, and licence incompatibilities

  • From: Denis S <denis@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 23:09:43 +0200

> Richard Hughes wrote:
>> Sure, I could, but it's not really in the spirit of licensing. That,
>> along with the bundled libraries is making packaging ArgyllCMS really
>> unattractive right now.
> You seem to be making a lot of problems for yourself. I don't
> quite understand why you think that temporarily removing incompatibly
> licensed files is not a reasonable approach.
> I don't think you are being terrible fair either - you are busy
> adding dependencies to the package by splitting libraries that
> it depends on out of it, while complaining that I have shipped
> it with exactly 1 dependency, Jam. That may be fine for your
> situation, but you are making no allowance for other users of Argyll.
>> It does, and at also warns of using AGPLv3 and GPLv3 in the same
>> project if you follow the links.
> I understood from the GNU website that AGPLv3 and GPLv3 are
> compatible (it would be strange if they were not).
>> Why did you even want to re-licence
>> from GPLv2 to GPLv2 *and* GPLv3 *and* AGPLv3 in the first place? It
>> turned a good project with a few licence problems into a licensing
>> nightmare in my opinion.
> I guess that's one of the drawbacks with accepting contributions
> from other people, one ends up with a variety of licenses.
>> All this is really making me want to not depend on ArgyllCMS in the
>> future and certainly not include it in a supported product like RHEL.
> Feel free not to include it then. People interested in color can
> always download it from the ArgyllCMS website, and at least
> then the package will have better functional integrity.
> Graeme Gill. 
In fact I'm Debian user, but I'd like to support Graeme fully in this
question, as in my eyes author have fully right on choosing licensing
which suit him best. As he is the one who invest most time in creating
great product not maintainers who's role also important by brining
product to end users but in my eyes not comparable with creating program.

With some programs I would probably have doubt whenever it worth to make
some changes to program in order to make it possible to be included into
distro repositories, but in case with Argyll which is very easy to
install and it works out of box without any major dependencies(I've used
it to calibrate monitors of my friends using Argyll and it was very easy
to get it running just from my flash drive, and I find it really cool).
I don't see reason to worry if it wouldn't be included into  repository,
people who interested in quality color calibration will certainly find
it and I'm more than sure will not have problems with using it.

And please understand me, by no means I'd like to start flame war, I
just wish to support author in his decisions which I found very reasonable.

Once again, thanks to Graeme and people who help him with creating such
great product!


Other related posts: