[task #16553] Submission of sox_ng

[Ineiev]

Follow-up Comment #5, task #16553 (group administration):


> I've done an analysis of its source code and optional libraries. The
optional
> libraries with which it can link are all GPLv2 or later, LGPLv2 or later,
> LGPLv2.1 or later, Two-clause BSD, Xiph, Wavpack or Zlib except for two,
> Opencore and VisualOn AMR, which are "Apache"
> https://sourceforge.net/p/opencore-amr/code/ci/master/tree/LICENSE
> which I gather is incompatible with GPLv3 or later.

[//www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#apache2 Apache License Version 2.0
is compatible with GPLv3] (in such cases we assume that the license will also
be compatible with future GPL versions).

> 141 are free software copyright to one or more individuals with year stamps
> and with GPLv2 or later or LGPLv2.1 or later notices. A few only say "(c)
> 2006-2012 SoX contributors" or "(c) SoX Contributers" which I assume are
not
> legally binding copyright notices as they do not indicate a physical person
or
> legal entity, or even the year in one case.

I think the years could be found out, 'SoX contributors' as the reference to
the copyright holder isn't ideal, but acceptable. 

> 38 are copyright and "freely distributable for any purpose"

This permission isn't sufficient for code to be free software; it may only be
acceptable for specific cases of non-functional data (like copies of the
licenses).

> 8 have no copyright statament or are "Written by" someone with no copyright
> line.
>
> 6 are copyright to someone, usually a SoX developer, but contain no licence
> terms. Of these, some authors may no longer be contactable.
>
> Lastly there's the included lpc10 library, which has no copyright
statements
> and was published in Fortran in October 1993 by the US Department of
Defence,

Works of the US may be considered public domain (IIRC, they are technically
uncopyrightable), but the fact that it's a work of the US should ideally be
checked, and a note added in the files in question.

> and translated to C in 1996.

If the translation is made with a grain of creativity, its authors may hold
copyright on it independently, therefore their separate permission is needed
for the work to be free.

> but I assume that, as it was published without copyright statements, and
long
> ago, it is in the public domain.

1993 isn't sufficiently long ago; depending on the jurisdiction, the copyright
term is often 50 years after the death of the last author, or more.

Without copyright and license notices, one should assume that little is
permitted to do with the work; definitely not public domain.

> The 6 source files containing copyright notices but no explicit licensing
text
> say one of:
>
> * Copyright 2008 Chris Bagwell And Sundry Contributors
...
> while wav.c says all of:
>
> * Copyright 1998-2006 Chris Bagwell and SoX Contributors
> * Copyright 1997 Graeme W. Gill, 93/5/17
> * Copyright 1992 Rick Richardson
> * Copyright 1991 Lance Norskog And Sundry Contributors
>
> Of these, Chris Bagwell was the main SoX maintainer from 1996 to 2015
though
> no one has heard from him for some years. However, his explicit copyright
to
> GPLv2 or later or LGPLv2.1 or later appears in many other source files, so
I
> think this is covered by "patent error" (i.e. "obvious error").

If those files were written specifically for SoX, one may assume the
[//www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html#why-license-notices licensing terms
used for the package in that time],

> If a release has one statement that "This program is released under license
> FOO," in a central place such as the README file, that makes the situation
> clear *for that release*.

So the license notice may be added to that file accordingly.


    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <https://savannah.nongnu.org/task/?16553>

_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.nongnu.org/