Le Sat, 9 Apr 2016 17:53:01 -0700, tony mancill <tmanc...@debian.org> a écrit :
> Hello Jérôme, Hi. > Thank you for reporting the updated version. I have taken a quick > look and the new upstream tarball needs some license clarification > before it will be distributable as per the DFSG. > > For example, the soundbank beneath ./TuxGuitar-resources/ merely says > that it was "contributed," but doesn't clarify the distribution > license. Furthermore, I think we'll run into problems with it not > being in a "preferred form of modification." I don't know about the "preferred form of modification". I don't know how an sf2 file is built and if we could expect some sort of sources for it. Anyway, it makes sense to distribute it independently, making it just a Suggests (and allowing other softwares to use it as well). FWIW, here is another package with .sf2 files: https://sources.debian.net/src/fluid-soundfont/3.1-5/ Regarding the licence, without any notice stating otherwise, I'd say LGPL like the rest, but it doesn't hurt to ask the author. His email address is in the AUTHORS file. I was about to email him, but you may want to do it and address the source files issue in the same message. > Similarly, parts of the TuxGuitar-android tree is GPLv2 instead of > LGPL, but I believe it can simply be excluded from a DFSG tarball. Yes, absolutely. > > Any plans to package it? > > I can try, but I welcome help. I think the first thing to do is > determine whether we need/want to try to distribute the soundbank > (via a contrib package) and have the tuxguitar-jsa package suggest > that. Looking at the popcon graphs [1], the -jsa package isn't nearly > as popular as either -alsa or -oss, so maybe it's preferable to get > 1.3.x packaged without it? If you mean package everything but Magic Sound Font (at least for now) and the Android stuff, then I totally agree. Thanks. -- Jérôme