Debian Bug report logs - #692728
New upstream release - 4.2.36

Reply or subscribe to this bug.

Display info messages

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Andrea Colangelo <warp10@ubuntu.com>

To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: New upstream release - 4.0.41

Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2012 11:49:03 +0100

Package: geogebra
Severity: wishlist

Geogebra 4.0.41 has been released upstream. Please consider updating the current Debian package in unstable.

Message #12 received at 692728@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Giovanni Mascellani <gio@debian.org>

To: Andrea Colangelo <warp10@ubuntu.com>, 692728@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#692728: New upstream release - 4.0.41

Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 23:34:29 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi.

Il 08/11/2012 11:49, Andrea Colangelo ha scritto:
> Geogebra 4.0.41 has been released upstream. Please consider updating
> the current Debian package in unstable.

I'll be working on it. Unfortunately, last versions appear to have many
more dependencies and many changes in how the source files are
organized, so I may take some time to sort everything out.

Giovanni.
-- 
Giovanni Mascellani <mascellani@poisson.phc.unipi.it>
Pisa, Italy

Web: http://poisson.phc.unipi.it/~mascellani
Jabber: g.mascellani@jabber.org / giovanni@elabor.homelinux.org

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Message #17 received at 692728@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Giovanni Mascellani <gio@debian.org>

To: 692728@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Andrea Colangelo <warp10@ubuntu.com>

Subject: GeoGebra not free anymore (starting from version 4.2)

Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 19:49:59 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi.

Il 16/05/2013 23:34, Giovanni Mascellani ha scritto:
> Il 08/11/2012 11:49, Andrea Colangelo ha scritto:
>> Geogebra 4.0.41 has been released upstream. Please consider updating
>> the current Debian package in unstable.
> 
> I'll be working on it. Unfortunately, last versions appear to have many
> more dependencies and many changes in how the source files are
> organized, so I may take some time to sort everything out.

Following a closer inspection at the licensing terms GeoGebra authors
use, I noticed that GeoGebra isn't free anymore, starting from version
4.2. The help and language files, which were before distributed under
CC-BY-SA 3.0+, have now the NC attribute to[1]. Moreover, it doesn't
seem to be possible to just avoid them, because at least the language
files are required to build the program.

 [1] http://www.geogebra.org/cms/license

The version 4.0, already in Debian and released in wheezy, is
unencumbered by this problem. So far, it seems to be impossible to
package version 4.2 or, even less, any later version (including the
version 5, currently in beta).

I'm really sorry of this thing and will get in touch with GeoGebra
developers to ask for clarifications and understand whether it's
possible to revert this decision.

Giovanni.
-- 
Giovanni Mascellani <mascellani@poisson.phc.unipi.it>
Pisa, Italy

Web: http://poisson.phc.unipi.it/~mascellani
Jabber: g.mascellani@jabber.org / giovanni@elabor.homelinux.org

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Message #22 received at 692728@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Andrea Colangelo <warp10@ubuntu.com>

To: Giovanni Mascellani <gio@debian.org>

Cc: 692728@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: GeoGebra not free anymore (starting from version 4.2)

Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 12:25:17 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 07:49:59PM +0200, Giovanni Mascellani wrote:
> Following a closer inspection at the licensing terms GeoGebra authors
> use, I noticed that GeoGebra isn't free anymore, starting from version
> 4.2. The help and language files, which were before distributed under
> CC-BY-SA 3.0+, have now the NC attribute to[1]. Moreover, it doesn't
> seem to be possible to just avoid them, because at least the language
> files are required to build the program.

Oh, that hurts! :(

> I'm really sorry of this thing and will get in touch with GeoGebra
> developers to ask for clarifications and understand whether it's
> possible to revert this decision.

Hope they will understand DFSG's reasons. Please, keep me up-to-date with this
issue, I am very interested in it.


-- 
Andrea Colangelo                     |   http://andreacolangelo.com
Ubuntu Developer  <www.ubuntu.com>   |   Debian Maintainer  <www.debian.org>

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #27 received at 692728@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Giovanni Mascellani <gio@debian.org>

To: Andrea Colangelo <warp10@ubuntu.com>

Cc: 692728@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: GeoGebra not free anymore (starting from version 4.2)

Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 18:47:13 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Il 25/06/2013 12:25, Andrea Colangelo ha scritto:
>> I'm really sorry of this thing and will get in touch with GeoGebra
>> developers to ask for clarifications and understand whether it's
>> possible to revert this decision.
> 
> Hope they will understand DFSG's reasons. Please, keep me up-to-date with this
> issue, I am very interested in it.

For sure. Unfortunately, I don't think good news are upcoming: GeoGebra
developers (in particular, I communicated with Markus Hohenwarter, but I
know that other people or representatives are answering with similar
wordings) assert that the license of GeoGebra was only clarified, not
modified. This is plainly false, since they added a NonCommercial clause
to the Creative Commons they're using; I commented underlining this
fact, but they didn't answer anymore.

They say that the task of "clarifying" GeoGebra's license was performed
by some not specified firm, "with many years of experience with
software licensing". I don't understand whether GeoGebra developers
wanted to change license in order to switch to a more
commercial-oriented development model, or if this "experienced firm"
just failed to understand what free software is and applied a non
commercial license just because everyone does so. Unfortunately,
upstream's unwillingness to answer my last email suggests the former...

Giovanni.
-- 
Giovanni Mascellani <mascellani@poisson.phc.unipi.it>
Pisa, Italy

Web: http://poisson.phc.unipi.it/~mascellani
Jabber: g.mascellani@jabber.org / giovanni@elabor.homelinux.org

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Message #32 received at 692728@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Giovanni Mascellani <gio@debian.org>

To: 692728@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Andrea Colangelo <warp10@ubuntu.com>

Subject: Re: Bug#692728: GeoGebra not free anymore (starting from version 4.2)

Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 23:48:24 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Il 25/06/2013 18:47, Giovanni Mascellani ha scritto:
> Il 25/06/2013 12:25, Andrea Colangelo ha scritto:
>>> I'm really sorry of this thing and will get in touch with GeoGebra
>>> developers to ask for clarifications and understand whether it's
>>> possible to revert this decision.
>>
>> Hope they will understand DFSG's reasons. Please, keep me up-to-date with this
>> issue, I am very interested in it.
> 
> For sure. Unfortunately, I don't think good news are upcoming: GeoGebra
> developers (in particular, I communicated with Markus Hohenwarter, but I
> know that other people or representatives are answering with similar
> wordings) assert that the license of GeoGebra was only clarified, not
> modified. This is plainly false, since they added a NonCommercial clause
> to the Creative Commons they're using; I commented underlining this
> fact, but they didn't answer anymore.

Little follow-up: the same bug request was posted in Lunchpad too.

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/geogebra/+bug/1211966

There is some more discussion happening there, although admittedly not much.

Giovanni.
-- 
Giovanni Mascellani <mascellani@poisson.phc.unipi.it>
Pisa, Italy

Web: http://poisson.phc.unipi.it/~mascellani
Jabber: g.mascellani@jabber.org / giovanni@elabor.homelinux.org

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Message #37 received at 692728@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Stuart Prescott <stuart@debian.org>

To: office@geogebra.org

Cc: 692728@debian.org, Sylvestre Ledru <sylvestre@debian.org>, Calixte Denizet <calixte.denizet@gmail.com>

Subject: GeoGebra licence and GPL violation

Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 16:25:25 +1000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi!

I noticed today that the licence change of GeoGebra leaves the program in a 
very messy situation. GeoGebra is a fantastic piece of software for use in 
education -- I use it myself and know many others who do so, which is why I 
would like to work with you to resolve this problem.

Let me firstly say that I completely appreciate why you have taken steps to 
differentiate between commercial and non-commercial licensing. My experience 
is, however, that engagement with the wider free software community is much 
more fruitful and will lead to code contributions in a way that restrictive 
licences will not. Moreover, free software authors have a very long tradition 
of being able to obtain cash or in-kind contributions from commercial 
organisations who are using free software by directly engaging with them. More 
carrot and less stick is a more reliable approach.

The conclusions I draw below are not only based on the idealism of Free 
Software that I hold as a Debian Developer but also on pragmatic, practical 
and legal readings of the licences involved. I have drawn on the Debian 
project's twenty years of experience in dealing with software licences. The 
problems I highlight below not only cause problems for the Debian project (and 
its derivatives like Ubuntu) but are also a fundamental problem for the 
International GeoGebra Institute itself and all other educational institutions 
that want to use GeoGebra. The current situation will lead to GeoGebra being 
removed from the mainstream Linux distributions (Debian, Debian-
Edu/SkoleLinux, Ubuntu, Fedora etc). It also precludes mass-deployment of 
GeoGebra in educational institutions, especially in environments where a 
student is given a physical device like a laptop that is imaged by a central 
IT department.

I feel quite confident that the above scenario was not the outcome that the 
International GeoGebra Institute had in mind when relicensing GeoGebra. It 
would be great if we could have an open discussion and sort out this problem.

To specific details:

Let us first be very precise and recognise that this is not a licence 
clarification but a licence change. Version 4.0.34.0, for instance, clearly 
places the work under GPLv3 and CC-BY-SA 3.0. The licence text goes on to 
discuss commercial vs non-commercial use but only in the context where you 
"put the resulting work under your copyright". That is to say that commercial 
usage is permitted, the software is free for anyone to use, free for them to 
modify and free for them to redistribute. The restrictions here are against 
people claiming copyright over material that is actually the copyright of the 
GeoGebra authors; this is a perfectly reasonable thing to do and in fact is 
already covered by the GPLv3 anyway.

However, the licence text attached to version 4.2.55.0 is GPLv3 and CC-BY-NC-
SA 3.0 and additional restrictions. A conversion from CC-BY-SA 3.0 to CC-BY-
NC-SA 3.0 is not clarification. The imposition of the extra restrictions is not 
confined to just the properties files but applies to java source code as well 
[0]; this is not a clarification but the imposition of a large number of 
restrictive conditions. The intent of this licence is to impose restrictions 
on commercial usage in such a way that users are no longer free to use the 
software. No users are permitted to redistribute the software (§10) which 
would also make redistribution of modified versions impossible as well. No-one 
is permitted to improve GeoGebra. GeoGebra is no longer free software. 

Have all copyright holders (java programmers, artists, translators -- there 
are many!) who contributed their work under the old licence terms agreed to 
the relicencing of their work? Does that include the CEA/CNRS/INRI who are 
copyright holders for the sections derived from scilab? The claim in §9 that 
GeoGebra is "Copyright (C) International GeoGebra Institute, 2013" is at best 
an assertion about the compilation; it does not cover significant chunks of the 
code or the bundled libraries and those bits of code are not the International 
GeoGebra Institute's to relicence.


The licence text goes to great lengths to impose additional restrictions over 
and above the GPLv3 while also stating that GeoGebra is available under GPLv3 
(clause 3 of the GeoGebra licence). Under §7 of GPLv3, I am permitted to 
ignore any additional restrictions imposed on me by the GeoGebra licence. This 
would strike out the entirety of the "non-commercial" aspects of the licence 
and the other restrictions about redistribution (§10). (The licence itself is 
not self-consistent on the point of redistribution; §10 forbids 
redistribution, while the preamble permits it.)


At this point in the analysis, I am left with two choices: 

  (a) I can conclude that GeoGebra is actually GPLv3 and strike out 
  the rest of the licence terms. Anyone can use GeoGebra for commercial
  or non-commercial purposes; it's Free Software.

  (b) I can conclude that GeoGebra is *not* available under 
  the GPLv3 as there are additional restrictions in force.  Unfortunately,
  that means that GeoGebra is instead under a GPL-incompatible 
  licence. 

Scenario (b) puts the International GeoGebra Institute in violation of the 
licences of two libraries that GeoGebra is linked against. EPS Graphics and 
JLaTeXMath are both licensed under the GPL "either version 2 of the License, 
or (at your option) any later version". Additionally, the International 
GeoGebra Institute is in violation of the scilab licence which covers section 
of the java code and which does not permit discrimination based on the field of 
endeavour (§5.1 of scilab's COPYING [1]).

Precompiled binaries of GeoGebra containing these libraries (such as the ones 
found at [2]) can only be offered if the licence terms of the entire download 
are compatible with the constituent parts. If we accept that "GPLv3 + CC-BY-
NC-SA 3.0 + additional restrictions" is more than just GPLv3 (i.e. we ignore 
§7 of GPLv3), then this licence is not compatible with either GPLv2 or GPLv3 
as required by EPS Graphics, JLaTeXMath; it's also incompatible with scilab. 
At present, distribution of recent versions of GeoGebra by anyone *including* 
International GeoGebra Institute is in violation of the licence JLaTeXMath, 
EPS Graphics and scilab. Violation of the GPL means that you do not have the 
right to distribute that work. Quite simply, each of the download links at [2] 
becomes a copyright violation and any school, university or linux distribution 
that passed on copies of GeoGebra to staff/students/users would also be 
committing a copyright violation.

I'm quite sure that is not what was intended.

I look forward to discussing this with you further and helping the 
International GeoGebra Institute and the GeoGebra developers continue to 
deliver high quality teaching tools. Please let me know how I can help you do 
this.

kind regards
Stuart


[0] It is also difficult to argue that the properties and the java code can 
really have separate licences in any case, but that is orthogonal to the 
problems here.

[1] http://cgit.scilab.org/cgit.cgi/scilab/tree/scilab/COPYING

[2] http://www.geogebra.org/cms/en/download/


-- 
Stuart Prescott    http://www.nanonanonano.net/   stuart@nanonanonano.net
Debian Developer   http://www.debian.org/         stuart@debian.org
GPG fingerprint    BE65 FD1E F4EA 08F3 23D4 3C6D 9FE8 B8CD 71C5 D1A8
GPG fingerprint    90E2 D2C1 AD14 6A1B 7EBB 891D BBC1 7EBB 1396 F2F7

[geogebra-4.0.34.0_LICENSE.TXT (text/plain, attachment)]

[geogebra-4.2.55_copyright (text/plain, attachment)]

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #42 received at 692728@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: GeoGebra <office@geogebra.org>

To: Stuart Prescott <stuart@debian.org>

Cc: 692728@debian.org, Sylvestre Ledru <sylvestre@debian.org>, Calixte Denizet <calixte.denizet@gmail.com>

Subject: Re: GeoGebra licence and GPL violation

Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 15:45:50 +0200

Dear Stuart,

thank you for your message and interest in GeoGebra!

We will discuss your questions with our legal team and will try to
come back to you with a detailled answer soon.

Have a good weekend,
Manuela

-- 
Manuela Hinterberger
GeoGebra | Partner Support
www.geogebra.org

On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 8:25 AM, Stuart Prescott <stuart@debian.org> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I noticed today that the licence change of GeoGebra leaves the program in a
> very messy situation. GeoGebra is a fantastic piece of software for use in
> education -- I use it myself and know many others who do so, which is why I
> would like to work with you to resolve this problem.
>
> Let me firstly say that I completely appreciate why you have taken steps to
> differentiate between commercial and non-commercial licensing. My experience
> is, however, that engagement with the wider free software community is much
> more fruitful and will lead to code contributions in a way that restrictive
> licences will not. Moreover, free software authors have a very long tradition
> of being able to obtain cash or in-kind contributions from commercial
> organisations who are using free software by directly engaging with them. More
> carrot and less stick is a more reliable approach.
>
> The conclusions I draw below are not only based on the idealism of Free
> Software that I hold as a Debian Developer but also on pragmatic, practical
> and legal readings of the licences involved. I have drawn on the Debian
> project's twenty years of experience in dealing with software licences. The
> problems I highlight below not only cause problems for the Debian project (and
> its derivatives like Ubuntu) but are also a fundamental problem for the
> International GeoGebra Institute itself and all other educational institutions
> that want to use GeoGebra. The current situation will lead to GeoGebra being
> removed from the mainstream Linux distributions (Debian, Debian-
> Edu/SkoleLinux, Ubuntu, Fedora etc). It also precludes mass-deployment of
> GeoGebra in educational institutions, especially in environments where a
> student is given a physical device like a laptop that is imaged by a central
> IT department.
>
> I feel quite confident that the above scenario was not the outcome that the
> International GeoGebra Institute had in mind when relicensing GeoGebra. It
> would be great if we could have an open discussion and sort out this problem.
>
> To specific details:
>
> Let us first be very precise and recognise that this is not a licence
> clarification but a licence change. Version 4.0.34.0, for instance, clearly
> places the work under GPLv3 and CC-BY-SA 3.0. The licence text goes on to
> discuss commercial vs non-commercial use but only in the context where you
> "put the resulting work under your copyright". That is to say that commercial
> usage is permitted, the software is free for anyone to use, free for them to
> modify and free for them to redistribute. The restrictions here are against
> people claiming copyright over material that is actually the copyright of the
> GeoGebra authors; this is a perfectly reasonable thing to do and in fact is
> already covered by the GPLv3 anyway.
>
> However, the licence text attached to version 4.2.55.0 is GPLv3 and CC-BY-NC-
> SA 3.0 and additional restrictions. A conversion from CC-BY-SA 3.0 to CC-BY-
> NC-SA 3.0 is not clarification. The imposition of the extra restrictions is not
> confined to just the properties files but applies to java source code as well
> [0]; this is not a clarification but the imposition of a large number of
> restrictive conditions. The intent of this licence is to impose restrictions
> on commercial usage in such a way that users are no longer free to use the
> software. No users are permitted to redistribute the software (§10) which
> would also make redistribution of modified versions impossible as well. No-one
> is permitted to improve GeoGebra. GeoGebra is no longer free software.
>
> Have all copyright holders (java programmers, artists, translators -- there
> are many!) who contributed their work under the old licence terms agreed to
> the relicencing of their work? Does that include the CEA/CNRS/INRI who are
> copyright holders for the sections derived from scilab? The claim in §9 that
> GeoGebra is "Copyright (C) International GeoGebra Institute, 2013" is at best
> an assertion about the compilation; it does not cover significant chunks of the
> code or the bundled libraries and those bits of code are not the International
> GeoGebra Institute's to relicence.
>
>
> The licence text goes to great lengths to impose additional restrictions over
> and above the GPLv3 while also stating that GeoGebra is available under GPLv3
> (clause 3 of the GeoGebra licence). Under §7 of GPLv3, I am permitted to
> ignore any additional restrictions imposed on me by the GeoGebra licence. This
> would strike out the entirety of the "non-commercial" aspects of the licence
> and the other restrictions about redistribution (§10). (The licence itself is
> not self-consistent on the point of redistribution; §10 forbids
> redistribution, while the preamble permits it.)
>
>
> At this point in the analysis, I am left with two choices:
>
>   (a) I can conclude that GeoGebra is actually GPLv3 and strike out
>   the rest of the licence terms. Anyone can use GeoGebra for commercial
>   or non-commercial purposes; it's Free Software.
>
>   (b) I can conclude that GeoGebra is *not* available under
>   the GPLv3 as there are additional restrictions in force.  Unfortunately,
>   that means that GeoGebra is instead under a GPL-incompatible
>   licence.
>
> Scenario (b) puts the International GeoGebra Institute in violation of the
> licences of two libraries that GeoGebra is linked against. EPS Graphics and
> JLaTeXMath are both licensed under the GPL "either version 2 of the License,
> or (at your option) any later version". Additionally, the International
> GeoGebra Institute is in violation of the scilab licence which covers section
> of the java code and which does not permit discrimination based on the field of
> endeavour (§5.1 of scilab's COPYING [1]).
>
> Precompiled binaries of GeoGebra containing these libraries (such as the ones
> found at [2]) can only be offered if the licence terms of the entire download
> are compatible with the constituent parts. If we accept that "GPLv3 + CC-BY-
> NC-SA 3.0 + additional restrictions" is more than just GPLv3 (i.e. we ignore
> §7 of GPLv3), then this licence is not compatible with either GPLv2 or GPLv3
> as required by EPS Graphics, JLaTeXMath; it's also incompatible with scilab.
> At present, distribution of recent versions of GeoGebra by anyone *including*
> International GeoGebra Institute is in violation of the licence JLaTeXMath,
> EPS Graphics and scilab. Violation of the GPL means that you do not have the
> right to distribute that work. Quite simply, each of the download links at [2]
> becomes a copyright violation and any school, university or linux distribution
> that passed on copies of GeoGebra to staff/students/users would also be
> committing a copyright violation.
>
> I'm quite sure that is not what was intended.
>
> I look forward to discussing this with you further and helping the
> International GeoGebra Institute and the GeoGebra developers continue to
> deliver high quality teaching tools. Please let me know how I can help you do
> this.
>
> kind regards
> Stuart
>
>
> [0] It is also difficult to argue that the properties and the java code can
> really have separate licences in any case, but that is orthogonal to the
> problems here.
>
> [1] http://cgit.scilab.org/cgit.cgi/scilab/tree/scilab/COPYING
>
> [2] http://www.geogebra.org/cms/en/download/
>
>
> --
> Stuart Prescott    http://www.nanonanonano.net/   stuart@nanonanonano.net
> Debian Developer   http://www.debian.org/         stuart@debian.org
> GPG fingerprint    BE65 FD1E F4EA 08F3 23D4 3C6D 9FE8 B8CD 71C5 D1A8
> GPG fingerprint    90E2 D2C1 AD14 6A1B 7EBB 891D BBC1 7EBB 1396 F2F7

Message #47 received at 692728@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Markus Hohenwarter <markus@geogebra.org>

To: Stuart Prescott <stuart@debian.org>

Cc: 692728@debian.org, Sylvestre Ledru <sylvestre@debian.org>, Calixte Denizet <calixte.denizet@gmail.com>, GeoGebra Office <office@geogebra.org>

Subject: Re: GeoGebra licence and GPL violation

Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 13:56:09 +0200

Hi Stuart,

Thank you for your email, and in particular for taking the time to
write such a complete and thoughtful inquiry with regards to
GeoGebra's license and terms of service.

I wanted to send this note off to you now confirming receipt, and in
advance of a fulsome response to your inquiry. The latter half of
August is typically a very busy time here at the university, with
preparations for the new academic year well under way.

I will revert early September when I will be able to attend to this
properly and in full, as I wish to ensure that GeoGebra retains its
close ties and positive relationships with colleagues in the Debian
and FLOSS communities.

Kind regards,
Markus

-- 
Dr. Markus Hohenwarter
GeoGebra | Founder & Managing Director
http://www.geogebra.org
--
Professor for Mathematics Education
Johannes Kepler University Linz, Austria


On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 8:25 AM, Stuart Prescott <stuart@debian.org> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I noticed today that the licence change of GeoGebra leaves the program in a
> very messy situation. GeoGebra is a fantastic piece of software for use in
> education -- I use it myself and know many others who do so, which is why I
> would like to work with you to resolve this problem.
>
> Let me firstly say that I completely appreciate why you have taken steps to
> differentiate between commercial and non-commercial licensing. My experience
> is, however, that engagement with the wider free software community is much
> more fruitful and will lead to code contributions in a way that restrictive
> licences will not. Moreover, free software authors have a very long tradition
> of being able to obtain cash or in-kind contributions from commercial
> organisations who are using free software by directly engaging with them. More
> carrot and less stick is a more reliable approach.
>
> The conclusions I draw below are not only based on the idealism of Free
> Software that I hold as a Debian Developer but also on pragmatic, practical
> and legal readings of the licences involved. I have drawn on the Debian
> project's twenty years of experience in dealing with software licences. The
> problems I highlight below not only cause problems for the Debian project (and
> its derivatives like Ubuntu) but are also a fundamental problem for the
> International GeoGebra Institute itself and all other educational institutions
> that want to use GeoGebra. The current situation will lead to GeoGebra being
> removed from the mainstream Linux distributions (Debian, Debian-
> Edu/SkoleLinux, Ubuntu, Fedora etc). It also precludes mass-deployment of
> GeoGebra in educational institutions, especially in environments where a
> student is given a physical device like a laptop that is imaged by a central
> IT department.
>
> I feel quite confident that the above scenario was not the outcome that the
> International GeoGebra Institute had in mind when relicensing GeoGebra. It
> would be great if we could have an open discussion and sort out this problem.
>
> To specific details:
>
> Let us first be very precise and recognise that this is not a licence
> clarification but a licence change. Version 4.0.34.0, for instance, clearly
> places the work under GPLv3 and CC-BY-SA 3.0. The licence text goes on to
> discuss commercial vs non-commercial use but only in the context where you
> "put the resulting work under your copyright". That is to say that commercial
> usage is permitted, the software is free for anyone to use, free for them to
> modify and free for them to redistribute. The restrictions here are against
> people claiming copyright over material that is actually the copyright of the
> GeoGebra authors; this is a perfectly reasonable thing to do and in fact is
> already covered by the GPLv3 anyway.
>
> However, the licence text attached to version 4.2.55.0 is GPLv3 and CC-BY-NC-
> SA 3.0 and additional restrictions. A conversion from CC-BY-SA 3.0 to CC-BY-
> NC-SA 3.0 is not clarification. The imposition of the extra restrictions is not
> confined to just the properties files but applies to java source code as well
> [0]; this is not a clarification but the imposition of a large number of
> restrictive conditions. The intent of this licence is to impose restrictions
> on commercial usage in such a way that users are no longer free to use the
> software. No users are permitted to redistribute the software (§10) which
> would also make redistribution of modified versions impossible as well. No-one
> is permitted to improve GeoGebra. GeoGebra is no longer free software.
>
> Have all copyright holders (java programmers, artists, translators -- there
> are many!) who contributed their work under the old licence terms agreed to
> the relicencing of their work? Does that include the CEA/CNRS/INRI who are
> copyright holders for the sections derived from scilab? The claim in §9 that
> GeoGebra is "Copyright (C) International GeoGebra Institute, 2013" is at best
> an assertion about the compilation; it does not cover significant chunks of the
> code or the bundled libraries and those bits of code are not the International
> GeoGebra Institute's to relicence.
>
>
> The licence text goes to great lengths to impose additional restrictions over
> and above the GPLv3 while also stating that GeoGebra is available under GPLv3
> (clause 3 of the GeoGebra licence). Under §7 of GPLv3, I am permitted to
> ignore any additional restrictions imposed on me by the GeoGebra licence. This
> would strike out the entirety of the "non-commercial" aspects of the licence
> and the other restrictions about redistribution (§10). (The licence itself is
> not self-consistent on the point of redistribution; §10 forbids
> redistribution, while the preamble permits it.)
>
>
> At this point in the analysis, I am left with two choices:
>
>   (a) I can conclude that GeoGebra is actually GPLv3 and strike out
>   the rest of the licence terms. Anyone can use GeoGebra for commercial
>   or non-commercial purposes; it's Free Software.
>
>   (b) I can conclude that GeoGebra is *not* available under
>   the GPLv3 as there are additional restrictions in force.  Unfortunately,
>   that means that GeoGebra is instead under a GPL-incompatible
>   licence.
>
> Scenario (b) puts the International GeoGebra Institute in violation of the
> licences of two libraries that GeoGebra is linked against. EPS Graphics and
> JLaTeXMath are both licensed under the GPL "either version 2 of the License,
> or (at your option) any later version". Additionally, the International
> GeoGebra Institute is in violation of the scilab licence which covers section
> of the java code and which does not permit discrimination based on the field of
> endeavour (§5.1 of scilab's COPYING [1]).
>
> Precompiled binaries of GeoGebra containing these libraries (such as the ones
> found at [2]) can only be offered if the licence terms of the entire download
> are compatible with the constituent parts. If we accept that "GPLv3 + CC-BY-
> NC-SA 3.0 + additional restrictions" is more than just GPLv3 (i.e. we ignore
> §7 of GPLv3), then this licence is not compatible with either GPLv2 or GPLv3
> as required by EPS Graphics, JLaTeXMath; it's also incompatible with scilab.
> At present, distribution of recent versions of GeoGebra by anyone *including*
> International GeoGebra Institute is in violation of the licence JLaTeXMath,
> EPS Graphics and scilab. Violation of the GPL means that you do not have the
> right to distribute that work. Quite simply, each of the download links at [2]
> becomes a copyright violation and any school, university or linux distribution
> that passed on copies of GeoGebra to staff/students/users would also be
> committing a copyright violation.
>
> I'm quite sure that is not what was intended.
>
> I look forward to discussing this with you further and helping the
> International GeoGebra Institute and the GeoGebra developers continue to
> deliver high quality teaching tools. Please let me know how I can help you do
> this.
>
> kind regards
> Stuart
>
>
> [0] It is also difficult to argue that the properties and the java code can
> really have separate licences in any case, but that is orthogonal to the
> problems here.
>
> [1] http://cgit.scilab.org/cgit.cgi/scilab/tree/scilab/COPYING
>
> [2] http://www.geogebra.org/cms/en/download/
>
>
> --
> Stuart Prescott    http://www.nanonanonano.net/   stuart@nanonanonano.net
> Debian Developer   http://www.debian.org/         stuart@debian.org
> GPG fingerprint    BE65 FD1E F4EA 08F3 23D4 3C6D 9FE8 B8CD 71C5 D1A8
> GPG fingerprint    90E2 D2C1 AD14 6A1B 7EBB 891D BBC1 7EBB 1396 F2F7

Message #52 received at 692728@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Stuart Prescott <stuart@debian.org>

To: Markus Hohenwarter <markus@geogebra.org>

Cc: 692728@bugs.debian.org, GeoGebra Office <office@geogebra.org>

Subject: Re: GeoGebra licence and GPL violation

Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 23:00:00 +1000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi Markus,

thanks for your reply -- talk to you more once things settle down in the new 
academic year.

regards
Stuart

-- 
Stuart Prescott    http://www.nanonanonano.net/   stuart@nanonanonano.net
Debian Developer   http://www.debian.org/         stuart@debian.org
GPG fingerprint    BE65 FD1E F4EA 08F3 23D4 3C6D 9FE8 B8CD 71C5 D1A8
GPG fingerprint    90E2 D2C1 AD14 6A1B 7EBB 891D BBC1 7EBB 1396 F2F7

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #57 received at 692728@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Markus Hohenwarter <markus@geogebra.org>

To: Stuart Prescott <stuart@debian.org>

Cc: Sylvestre Ledru <sylvestre@debian.org>, Calixte Denizet <calixte.denizet@gmail.com>, GeoGebra Office <office@geogebra.org>

Subject: Re: GeoGebra licence and GPL violation

Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 15:06:18 +0200

Dear Stuart,

thank you again for your interest in GeoGebra and sorry for the delay
in my response!

We have put together a little license FAQ list on our website at
http://www.geogebra.org/cms/license#FAQ to give a little bit more
background on the details of our license for everyone interested. We
hope that this also answers all your questions. The International
GeoGebra Institute, our non-profit organization behind GeoGebra, is
dedicated to the open source movement and collaboration with members
of the FOSS community.

Kind regards,
Markus


On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Markus Hohenwarter <markus@geogebra.org> wrote:
> Hi Stuart,
>
> Thank you for your email, and in particular for taking the time to
> write such a complete and thoughtful inquiry with regards to
> GeoGebra's license and terms of service.
>
> I wanted to send this note off to you now confirming receipt, and in
> advance of a fulsome response to your inquiry. The latter half of
> August is typically a very busy time here at the university, with
> preparations for the new academic year well under way.
>
> I will revert early September when I will be able to attend to this
> properly and in full, as I wish to ensure that GeoGebra retains its
> close ties and positive relationships with colleagues in the Debian
> and FLOSS communities.
>
> Kind regards,
> Markus
>
> --
> Dr. Markus Hohenwarter
> GeoGebra | Founder & Managing Director
> http://www.geogebra.org
> --
> Professor for Mathematics Education
> Johannes Kepler University Linz, Austria

Message #62 received at 692728@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Andreas B. Mundt" <andi@debian.org>

To: 692728@bugs.debian.org

Cc: 692728-subscribe@bugs.debian.org

Subject: dedicated to the open source movement and collaboration

Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2013 12:17:07 +0100

Hi,

this is a rather disappointing outcome.  Are there any plans how to
continue with this issue?  Is it perhaps possible to get rid of the
non-free parts or re-create free drop-ins by the community?

Best regards,

     Andi

Message #67 received at 692728@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Sylvestre Ledru <sylvestre@debian.org>

To: legal@lists.gpl-violations.org

Cc: calixte <c@lixte.fr>, Stuart Prescott <stuart@debian.org>, 692728@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Possible GPL violation: Geogebra

Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 03:03:53 -0800

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hello,

>From it last few releases, geogebra is released under GPL with a non
commercial clause.

Besides the fact that it seems invalid, it also ships Jlatexmath (which
I co maintain) which is published under the GPL v2.

As you can see on the Debian thread (
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=692728 ), we contacted
and exchanged with upstream.

Since they didn't move, we contacted them privately to get more
information and they replied with:
"we've had our licence etc details checked by an experienced legal team
and it's OK. Hopefully this is clear:
http://www.geogebra.org/cms/license#FAQ"
<http://www.geogebra.org/cms/license#FAQ>
In particular, first sentence of their license (
http://www.geogebra.org/cms/license ) is non-free
"You are free to copy, distribute and transmit GeoGebra for
non-commercial purposes"

Do you think their "experienced legal team" is right?

Thanks
Sylvestre

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Message #72 received at 692728@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Paul Tagliamonte <paultag@debian.org>

To: Sylvestre Ledru <sylvestre@debian.org>, 692728@bugs.debian.org

Cc: legal@lists.gpl-violations.org, Stuart Prescott <stuart@debian.org>, calixte <c@lixte.fr>

Subject: Re: Bug#692728: Possible GPL violation: Geogebra

Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 21:22:31 -0500

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 03:03:53AM -0800, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> From it last few releases, geogebra is released under GPL with a non commercial
> clause.
> 
> Besides the fact that it seems invalid, it also ships Jlatexmath (which I co
> maintain) which is published under the GPL v2.
> 
> As you can see on the Debian thread ( http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/
> bugreport.cgi?bug=692728 ), we contacted and exchanged with upstream.
> 
> Since they didn't move, we contacted them privately to get more information and
> they replied with:
> "we've had our licence etc details checked by an experienced legal team and
> it's OK. Hopefully this is clear: http://www.geogebra.org/cms/license#FAQ"
> In particular, first sentence of their license ( http://www.geogebra.org/cms/
> license ) is non-free
> "You are free to copy, distribute and transmit GeoGebra for non-commercial
> purposes"
> 
> Do you think their "experienced legal team" is right?

Section 7 of the GPL-3 (if it's not -3, there's a clause in other
versions of the GPL as well)

/
| All other non-permissive additional terms are considered “further
| restrictions” within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as you
| received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is
| governed by this License along with a term that is a further
| restriction, you may remove that term. [ snip ]
\

Sounds like you can ignore their non-commercial clause. I'm sure their
legal team thinks this is A-OK by them.

Cheers,
  Paul

-- 
 .''`.  Paul Tagliamonte <paultag@debian.org>  |   Proud Debian Developer
: :'  : 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352  D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87
`. `'`  http://people.debian.org/~paultag
 `-     http://people.debian.org/~paultag/conduct-statement.txt

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #77 received at 692728@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Paul Tagliamonte <paultag@debian.org>

To: Sylvestre Ledru <sylvestre@debian.org>, 692728@bugs.debian.org

Cc: legal@lists.gpl-violations.org, Stuart Prescott <stuart@debian.org>, calixte <c@lixte.fr>

Subject: Re: Bug#692728: Possible GPL violation: Geogebra

Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 21:29:05 -0500

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 09:22:31PM -0500, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> 
> Section 7 of the GPL-3 (if it's not -3, there's a clause in other
> versions of the GPL as well)

I see now that they claim their installer is the only non-commericial
thing. This seems like something you can just strip from their tarball.
In addition, from the GPL2/3:

| The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
| making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code
| means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any
| associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control
| compilation and installation of the executable. [...]
                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^


Cheery-bye,
  Paul

-- 
 .''`.  Paul Tagliamonte <paultag@debian.org>  |   Proud Debian Developer
: :'  : 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352  D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87
`. `'`  http://people.debian.org/~paultag
 `-     http://people.debian.org/~paultag/conduct-statement.txt

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #82 received at 692728@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Sylvestre Ledru <sylvestre@debian.org>

To: Hendrik Weimer <hendrik@enyo.de>

Cc: legal@lists.gpl-violations.org, 692728@bugs.debian.org, Stuart Prescott <stuart@debian.org>, calixte <c@lixte.fr>

Subject: Re: Possible GPL violation: Geogebra

Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 20:34:35 -0800

On 28/01/2014 11:28, Hendrik Weimer wrote:
> Sylvestre Ledru <sylvestre@debian.org> writes:
>
>> From it last few releases, geogebra is released under GPL with a non
>> commercial clause.
>>
>> Besides the fact that it seems invalid, it also ships Jlatexmath (which I co
>> maintain) which is published under the GPL v2.
> If the program is a derived work of both the GPLed source code and the
> CC-BY-SAed language files, the resulting work has already been
> non-distributable before because the two licenses are incompatible. The
> new NC clause and the vague statements on the website only add insult to
> injury.
OK. Thanks for the information.
> You should contact Jlatexmath upstream to check whether they gave an
> exemption to geogebra. If not, they might want to apply some pressure.
>
I am sorry I didn't provide the information but I am one of the
maintainer of jlatexmath
(Calixte Denizet, as cc being the main developer).
We didn't provide any exemption. And, even if we want to do that (which
we don't want),
we could not since jlatexmath is a fork of jmathtex (GPL).
We applied pressure and it didn't work.

Thanks,
Sylvestre

Message #87 received at 692728@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Hendrik Weimer <hendrik@enyo.de>

To: Sylvestre Ledru <sylvestre@debian.org>

Cc: legal@lists.gpl-violations.org, 692728@bugs.debian.org, Stuart Prescott <stuart@debian.org>, calixte <c@lixte.fr>

Subject: Re: Possible GPL violation: Geogebra

Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 20:28:40 +0100

Sylvestre Ledru <sylvestre@debian.org> writes:

> From it last few releases, geogebra is released under GPL with a non
> commercial clause.
>
> Besides the fact that it seems invalid, it also ships Jlatexmath (which I co
> maintain) which is published under the GPL v2.

If the program is a derived work of both the GPLed source code and the
CC-BY-SAed language files, the resulting work has already been
non-distributable before because the two licenses are incompatible. The
new NC clause and the vague statements on the website only add insult to
injury.

You should contact Jlatexmath upstream to check whether they gave an
exemption to geogebra. If not, they might want to apply some pressure.

Hendrik

Message #92 received at 692728@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Bruce Perens <bruce@perens.com>

To: Hendrik Weimer <hendrik@enyo.de>,Sylvestre Ledru <sylvestre@debian.org>

Cc: 692728@bugs.debian.org,legal@lists.gpl-violations.org,Stuart Prescott <stuart@debian.org>,calixte <c@lixte.fr>

Subject: Re: Possible GPL violation: Geogebra

Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 08:36:22 -0800

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Internationalization files are derivative works if they internationalize strings that were created by someone else. And if those strings were part of an original GPL work there is potentially a license violation. But if they were created by the same author as the GPL program they are not derivative of anything. It's also going to be difficult to argue convincingly to a court that they must be under a license that is compatible with the rest of the program, they are arguably input to the program.

So the real question here is whether Siylvestre's original text strings are translated in files under different licenses than his original versions.

We'd like the GPL to stick to any  works that are combined with the program in any way. Unfortunately case law from CAI v. Altai to Oracle v. Google has shot down that theory. This is ultimately good for Free Software in that we can do things like clone APIs, proprietary computer languages, and the overall functionality of programs only because licenses are not as effective as the software author would like them to be.

Thanks

Bruce

On January 28, 2014 11:28:40 AM PST, Hendrik Weimer <hendrik@enyo.de> wrote:
>Sylvestre Ledru <sylvestre@debian.org> writes:
>
>> From it last few releases, geogebra is released under GPL with a non
>> commercial clause.
>>
>> Besides the fact that it seems invalid, it also ships Jlatexmath
>(which I co
>> maintain) which is published under the GPL v2.
>
>If the program is a derived work of both the GPLed source code and the
>CC-BY-SAed language files, the resulting work has already been
>non-distributable before because the two licenses are incompatible. The
>new NC clause and the vague statements on the website only add insult
>to
>injury.
>
>You should contact Jlatexmath upstream to check whether they gave an
>exemption to geogebra. If not, they might want to apply some pressure.
>
>Hendrik

-- 
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Message #97 received at 692728@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Hendrik Weimer <hendrik@enyo.de>

To: Bruce Perens <bruce@perens.com>

Cc: Sylvestre Ledru <sylvestre@debian.org>, 692728@bugs.debian.org, legal@lists.gpl-violations.org, Stuart Prescott <stuart@debian.org>, calixte <c@lixte.fr>

Subject: Re: Possible GPL violation: Geogebra

Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 18:57:54 +0100

Bruce Perens <bruce@perens.com> writes:

> Internationalization files are derivative works if they
> internationalize strings that were created by someone else. And if
> those strings were part of an original GPL work there is potentially a
> license violation. But if they were created by the same author as the
> GPL program they are not derivative of anything. It's also going to be
> difficult to argue convincingly to a court that they must be under a
> license that is compatible with the rest of the program, they are
> arguably input to the program.

I'm not so sure about the last part as it heavily depends on the
particular implementation. For gettext-style translations you are
probably right, as you can remove the translation files and still have a
working program. If *all* languages are equally stored in a separate
file, then removing this file will stop the program from working. So the
question is: How is this one in Geogebra?

Anyway, the potentially infringing copy has been created by an Austrian
organization and is hosted in Germany; U.S. case law is probably not
too relevant here.

Hendrik

Message #102 received at 692728@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Bruce Perens <bruce@perens.com>

To: Hendrik Weimer <hendrik@enyo.de>

Cc: Sylvestre Ledru <sylvestre@debian.org>, 692728@bugs.debian.org, legal@lists.gpl-violations.org, Stuart Prescott <stuart@debian.org>, calixte <c@lixte.fr>

Subject: Re: Possible GPL violation: Geogebra

Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 13:29:29 -0800

On 01/29/2014 09:57 AM, Hendrik Weimer wrote:
> If *all* languages are equally stored in a separate file, then 
> removing this file will stop the program from working.
Another file could be substituted for it, one created using a clean-room 
process so that we are certain it's not derivative, and the program 
would again operate and emit proper messages. So, we can't really use 
the fact that removing the file breaks the program to prove that all 
such files must be derivative of the program.

While it would be nice to see European courts ruling against precedents 
of U.S. courts in matters of technology copyright, the reality is that 
European attorneys do include precedence from US cases in their 
arguments, and the courts quite often follow them. They aren't required 
to follow them the way a court in the same US circuit might have to, but 
nor do they shun looking at the findings of a foreign court in a similar 
case.

Message #107 received at 692728@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Hendrik Weimer <hendrik@enyo.de>

To: Bruce Perens <bruce@perens.com>

Cc: Sylvestre Ledru <sylvestre@debian.org>, 692728@bugs.debian.org, legal@lists.gpl-violations.org, Stuart Prescott <stuart@debian.org>, calixte <c@lixte.fr>

Subject: Re: Possible GPL violation: Geogebra

Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 08:34:01 +0100

Bruce Perens <bruce@perens.com> writes:

> On 01/29/2014 09:57 AM, Hendrik Weimer wrote:
>> If *all* languages are equally stored in a separate file, then
>> removing this file will stop the program from working.
> Another file could be substituted for it, one created using a
> clean-room process so that we are certain it's not derivative, and the
> program would again operate and emit proper messages. So, we can't
> really use the fact that removing the file breaks the program to prove
> that all such files must be derivative of the program.

Oh, I think we're both talking about two different issues here. I'm not
saying that language files are always a derivative of the source code of
the program. Rather, I'm saying that the final product that is being
distributed is a derivative of both the source code *and* the actual
language file that is included in the distribution.

So, assuming the source code is GPLed, it's fine to distribute a product
based on the source code and a GPL-compatible language file (say, BSD-3)
because the product as a whole can be distributed under the
GPL. However, if the language file carries a GPL-incompatible license
(such as CC-BY-SA), the resulting product cannot be distributed in a
legal way.

Hendrik

Message #112 received at 692728@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Nicolas Patrois <nicolas.patrois@gmail.com>

To: Debian Bug Tracking System <692728@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: geogebra: New upstream release - 5.0.122.0

Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2015 13:16:24 +0200

Package: geogebra
Version: 4.0.34.0+dfsg1-3
Followup-For: Bug #692728

Dear Maintainer,

Now, the latset version is #5.
Thank you.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: stretch/sid
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (500, 'testing')
Architecture: i386 (i686)

Kernel: Linux 3.9-1-686-pae (SMP w/3 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=fr_FR.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=fr_FR.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)

Versions of packages geogebra depends on:
ii  default-jre [java7-runtime]     2:1.7-52
ii  gcj-4.4-jre [java5-runtime]     4.4.7-1
ii  gcj-4.6-jre [java5-runtime]     4.6.4-2
ii  gcj-4.7-jre [java5-runtime]     4.7.3-2
ii  gcj-4.8-jre [java5-runtime]     4.8.4-2
ii  gcj-4.9-jre [java5-runtime]     4.9.2-16
ii  gcj-jre [java5-runtime]         4:4.9.2-4
ii  icedtea-netx-common             1.5.2-1.1
ii  libcommons-collections3-java    3.2.1-8
ii  libcommons-math-java            2.2-4
ii  libfreehep-graphics2d-java      2.1.1-4
ii  libfreehep-graphicsio-emf-java  2.1.1-emfplus+dfsg1-2
ii  libfreehep-graphicsio-java      2.1.1-3
ii  libfreehep-graphicsio-pdf-java  2.1.1+dfsg-1
ii  libfreehep-graphicsio-svg-java  2.1.1-3
ii  libfreehep-io-java              2.0.2-4
ii  libfreehep-util-java            2.0.2-5
ii  libfreehep-xml-java             2.1.2+dfsg1-3
ii  libjfugue-java                  4.0.3-3
ii  libjlatexmath-java              1.0.3-1
ii  librhino-java                   1.7R4-3
ii  mathpiper                       0.81f+svn4469+dfsg3-3
ii  openjdk-6-jre [java6-runtime]   6b31-1.13.3-1
ii  openjdk-7-jre [java7-runtime]   7u75-2.5.4-2
ii  sun-java5-jre [java5-runtime]   1.5.0-19-1
ii  sun-java6-jre [java6-runtime]   6.26-3

geogebra recommends no packages.

Versions of packages geogebra suggests:
ii  cups  1.7.5-11

-- no debconf information

Message #117 received at 692728@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: tony mancill <tmancill@debian.org>

To: Nicolas Patrois <nicolas.patrois@gmail.com>, 692728@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#692728: geogebra: New upstream release - 5.0.122.0

Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2015 18:54:03 -0700

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On 06/01/2015 04:16 AM, Nicolas Patrois wrote:
> Package: geogebra
> Version: 4.0.34.0+dfsg1-3
> Followup-For: Bug #692728
> 
> Dear Maintainer,
> 
> Now, the latset version is #5.
> Thank you.

Hello Nicolas,

It seems that the geogebra license [1] for the current version restricts
it to non-commercial use only.  This means that at best, it could only
be included in the non-free section of the Debian archive.  If you need
version 5, you might try the upstream .deb packaging, documented here [2].

Cheers,
tony

[1] http://www.geogebra.org/download/license.txt
[2] http://wiki.geogebra.org/en/Reference:GeoGebra_Installation#Linux

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Message #122 received at 692728@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "USPS Parcels Delivery" <peter.austin@azcarpartsuk.com>

To: 692728@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Notification status of your delivery (USPS 001661152)

Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2017 02:17:38 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Dear Customer,

We can not deliver your parcel arrived at January 26.

Postal label is enclosed to this e-mail. Please check the attachment!

Kind thanks,
Peter Austin,
USPS Support Manager.

[Undelivered-Parcel-ID-001661152.zip (application/zip, attachment)]

Message #127 received at 692728@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Николай <nickkolok@mail.ru>

To: 692728@bugs.debian.org, sylvestre@debian.org

Subject: Any news on GeoGebra?

Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2022 21:35:01 +0300

Hi comrads,

are there any news on GeoGebra licensing since 2014?  Has any pressure 
been applied?

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=692728

Regards.

Message #132 received at 692728@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Søren Bredlund Caspersen <soeren.b.c@gmail.com>

To: 692728@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Possible GPL violation: Geogebra

Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2022 11:07:48 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Tue, 28 Jan 2014 20:28:40 +0100 Hendrik Weimer <hendrik@enyo.de> wrote:
> Sylvestre Ledru <sylvestre@debian.org> writes:
>
> > From it last few releases, geogebra is released under GPL with a non
> > commercial clause.
> >
> > Besides the fact that it seems invalid, it also ships Jlatexmath (which
I co
> > maintain) which is published under the GPL v2.
>
> If the program is a derived work of both the GPLed source code and the
> CC-BY-SAed language files, the resulting work has already been
> non-distributable before because the two licenses are incompatible. The
> new NC clause and the vague statements on the website only add insult to
> injury.
>
> You should contact Jlatexmath upstream to check whether they gave an
> exemption to geogebra. If not, they might want to apply some pressure.
>
> Hendrik

Greetings everyone.

This issue is almost 10 years old now...

Has anyone tried applying legal pressure to GeoGebra. If they are violating
licences of Jlatexmath (and others) it sounds like a clear cut case?
Perhaps FSFE or someone similar would be willing to help out with building
and arguing a legal case?
https://fsfe.org/activities/legal.en.html


Alternatively, has anyone considered forking GeoGebra?
How much time would it take to clear out all the disputed / non-free
licensed files, and get to a product with a free license?

Kind regards
Søren

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.