Hello Debian, the PyAntlr extension of Antlr consists of two software parts:
(1) A generator source code located in antlr/actions/python ; and a (2) runt-time library located in lib/python I herewith declare, that o part (1) has been released into the wild under the conditions of license http://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause ; and further, that o part (2) has been released into the wild under the conditions of license GPL version 3 or later (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt) // Wolfgang Häfelinger On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 6:07 PM, Thorsten Glaser <t...@mirbsd.de> wrote: > wolfgang haefelinger dixit: > > >Discussed this with the original author of Antlr. The lights are on red > for > >a new 2.7 release and I'm currently not willing to create a fork. > > Sure. Let’s just add editorial notes from Terence and you to clean up > the licence situation. We will put that into debian/copyright, and you > (Terence, probably) can put it up on the website, and that should be > everything anyone could ever need. > > >which is why the “LICENSE.txt” of Antlr itself does not > >> work for you. (Side fact: it’s misnamed because PD means absence of > >> the need for a licence.) > > >What file name does Debian then propose? > > This is not about Debian (they do not ship those files anyway, but > collect all licencing information in a central file) but about PD > versus licences. But this does not matter – we’re not re-releasing, > so we just put the updated info “somewhere”, and everything is good. > > Besides, with the proposed language I sent to Terence, there would > be a licence, so this point is moot anyway. > > >> 1) antlr/actions/python/ > >> 2) lib/python/ > > >My "statement" is then: > > > > o All source code packed with (1) is released in terms of the BSD > software > >license. > > That is one of these? > * http://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause > * http://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-2-Clause > > > p All source code packed with (2) is released in terms of the GPL > software > >license. > > This also, unfortunately, has got several options… > * GPL, any version > * GPL version 2 only > * GPL version 2 or later > * GPL version 3 only > * GPL version 3 or later > * GPL version (1 or) 2 or 3 only > > >So, can you help me reformulate them so that they look proper and can be > >used in an "official" statement? > > Yes, of course. Just solve the above choices ;-) > > >Second, how shall I transmit this statement to Debian? There is a > >"half-backed" website [1] - maintained by me - where I could put those > >license details. > > Just per eMail to this bugreport is enough. It would be good > if you can PGP sign it, but that’s not been required until now. > > If you update a website, sure, put it up there. Otherwise, I’d > suggest (once finished) you also send it to Terence, so it can > be shown at the official Antlr site. > > Thanks for your patience! > > bye, > //mirabilos > -- > <igli> exceptions: a truly awful implementation of quite a nice idea. > <igli> just about the worst way you could do something like that, afaic. > <igli> it's like anti-design. <mirabilos> that too… may I quote you on > that? > <igli> sure, tho i doubt anyone will listen ;) > -- Wolfgang Häfelinger häfelinger IT - Applied Software Architecture http://www.haefelinger.it +49 1520 32 52 981 (+31 648 27 61 59)
__ This is the maintainer address of Debian's Java team <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers>. Please use debian-j...@lists.debian.org for discussions and questions.