Clarification about the LDPC license

[daissi]

Hello @radfordneal,

For context, the package of openfec has just been rejected from Debian because it contains some LDPC codes with the following license:

 Permission is granted for anyone to copy, use, modify, or distribute these
 programs and accompanying documents for any purpose, provided this copyright
 notice is retained and prominently displayed, along with a note saying
 that the original programs are available from Radford Neal's web page, and
 note is made of any changes made to these programs.  These programs and
 documents are distributed without any warranty, express or implied.  As the
 programs were written for research purposes only, they have not been tested
 to the degree that would be advisable in any important application.  All use
 of these programs is entirely at the user's own risk.

The questionable part is ... this copyright notice is retained and prominently displayed, ... because we don't know if Debian fulfills this requirement knowing the license and copyright are in the header of relevant files, moreover we provide a summary of all licenses of a software in a debian/copyright file as you can see for openfec here.

If would be wonderful if you could confirm it is enough to be compatible with prominently displayed.

Thank you!

Best regards,
Dylan

[radfordneal]

Hi Dylan, I'm fine with the inclusion of my copyright notice for my LDPC software in the usual place along with other copyright notices. What I had in mind by the provision that it be "prominently displayed" was excluding it being in a binary file or some such. Glad you've found my work useful! Radford Neal

…

On 06/01/2024, Dylan Aïssi ***@***.***> wrote: Hello @radfordneal, For context, the package of [openfec](https://github.com/roc-streaming/openfec) has just been [rejected from Debian](https://lists.debian.org/debian-multimedia/2024/01/msg00024.html) because it contains some LDPC codes with the following license: ``` Permission is granted for anyone to copy, use, modify, or distribute these programs and accompanying documents for any purpose, provided this copyright notice is retained and prominently displayed, along with a note saying that the original programs are available from Radford Neal's web page, and note is made of any changes made to these programs. These programs and documents are distributed without any warranty, express or implied. As the programs were written for research purposes only, they have not been tested to the degree that would be advisable in any important application. All use of these programs is entirely at the user's own risk. ``` The questionable part is `... this copyright notice is retained and prominently displayed, ...` because we don't know if Debian fulfills this requirement knowing the license and copyright are in the header of relevant files, moreover we provide a summary of all licenses of a software in a [debian/copyright file](https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/) as you can see for [openfec here](https://salsa.debian.org/multimedia-team/openfec/-/blob/master/debian/copyright). If would be wonderful if you could confirm it is enough to be compatible with `prominently displayed`. Thank you! Best regards, Dylan -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: #7 You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Message ID: ***@***.***>

[daissi]

Thank you for your prompt clarification. I will quote your answer (with a link to this thread) in the debian/copyright file as this clarification is a requirement for Debian to redistribute your code.

Thanks again!