Hello, Thanks everyone for your answers!
On 2022-08-30 21:39, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 12:00:39PM -0500, Ryan Pavlik wrote: >> The easiest way to do the tarball cleaning is with Files-Excluded in the >> copyright file, uscan will involve something (mkorigtargz?) that uses it to >> repack. That's a technical answer to the technical side of the question. > > Even better, probably: > > Files-Excluded: * > Files-Included: AmberTools I was not aware of Files-Included. This would greatly simplify repacking the tarball, provided policy/legal side permits. >> On the "policy"/legal question of whether it's permissible to package the >> internal open source in this larger source for the Debian project, I have >> no specific opinion but it sounds complicated. You might gauge upstream's >> feelings by asking if they can provide a tarball with just the open source >> parts. If not, even if your interpretation of the license situation is that >> you can package the inner code, it may not be worth it if it's fought by >> upstream. > > Exactly. > It wouldn't be the first time that we package something that the > original developers never intended to, only to find ourself in some sort > of passive-agressive situation, with some sort of hostile upstream. At > which point, I would wholeheartedly recommend you don't even start... > > Instead, if they are happy with you packaging this, they might just be > happy enough to extract AmberTools and distribute it in some nicer way > not requiring identification on a website… Asking upstream seems a good way to start. This is what I will do. Thanks again, Andrius
