[[Resend due to email error, changed shortened url]]


As a Debian maintainer of the calligra package, I'm reviewing licensing and
copyright details. We've found some issues that I'll explain in this email
and we'd like to hear your point of view.

I'm considering that general licensing as per COPYING, COPYING.DOC and
COPYING.LIB applies to any files that don't have an explicit license. But in
some cases it might be unclear, so I'm pointing them out.

Please correct me if there's any mistakes in this assessment.

ZIP files
  only jpg and png files.
PROPOSAL: if general license applies, no further action.

  only an xml file. I'd assign this the general license. Just out of curiosity 
what is this for?
PROPOSAL: if general license applies, no further action.

  This zip contains several png files which copyright and licensing I'd 
appreciate to be confirmed. It also contains a css where I'd assume general 
license applies and a minified js file (see next section)
PROPOSAL: if general license applies for png/jpg/css, no further action. Read 
next section.

Minified js files
  Minified js files are considered compiled files in Debian, and require source
code (the non minified js) to produce the minified/compiled file on package

  The oldest changeset where I could trace 
stage/templates/exportHTML/templates/stage.zip which contains the js/jquery-
min.js file is this: 

  Unfortunately, this is not enough to generate the minified file from source.
PROPOSAL: provided non-minified source and procedure to generate minified js 
(possibly at build time)

More minified files:
PROPOSAL1: provided non-minified source and procedure to generate minified js 
(possibly at build time)
PROPOSAL2: remove webforms as already done in master.

Color profiles (ICC, ICM)
  We're concerned about license for these profiles. In some cases, neither
licensing nor copyright is clear. Metadata is helpful, but not enough.
Public domain profiles are ok, but there must be a way to verify it. For
instance: download url where the authorship/license is stated.

  If color profiles (as binary file) are generated from a human readable
source, then having source (with licensing information) would be helpful as

  Note: I used iccdump from debian package argyll to get profile metadata.
(argyll package is https://packages.debian.org/sid/argyll )

krita/data/profiles/WideGamut.icm (No copyright)
krita/data/profiles/sRGB.icm (No copyright)
PROPOSAL: verify authorship and licensing of these files.

krita/data/profiles/scRGB.icm (© Cyrille Berger)
  Verified. For instance: 
PROPOSAL: If assessment is correct, no further action.

krita/data/profiles/krita25_lcms-builtin-sRGB_g100-truegamma.icc (No copyright, 
use freely)
  Included in http://commits.kde.org/calligra/b0d83bbb35b5 mentioning an 
email. Is that email public?
PROPOSAL: verify authorship and licensing of this file.

plugins/colorengines/lcms2/colorprofiles/data/fogra27l.icm (public domain)
  According to metadata, profile is public domain, yet the origin is needed for 
  - Addition of the profile in koffice:
  - Rename of the same profile in scribus (where it has been presumably taken)
PROPOSAL1: verify authorship and licensing of this file.
PROPOSAL2: fogra27l is superseded by fogra39l, according to 
http://tinyurl.com/m46lc8h (should take to fogra.org website). Using fogra39l 
would lead to the same situation. See also http://www.color.org/fogra39.xalter
PROPOSAL3: switch to a verified free profile.

plugins/colorengines/lcms2/colorprofiles/data/CMY.icm (copyright Sun 
Microsystems, 1996)
  This is very problematic. Debian packages can't ship this file without 
clarifying licensing which I couldn't find anywhere.
  Added in 
PROPOSAL1: verify authorship and licensing of this file.
PROPOSAL2: switch to a verified free profile. Here is a public domain, generic 
       http://www.argyllcms.com/cmyk.icm (see also 
http://sourceforge.net/p/lcms/mailman/message/32755884/ )

Java jar files
jar files are binary files, as such, in Debian we need the source code of those 
files and generate them on package build (or removing the files from the 
and adding dependencies on the packages that provide these files).

In the jar case, there are some pointers on where the jar comes from, but 
still bundling a generated binary is not desirable.

The fixes for that from the licensing point of view are:
- Removing the feature
- If the jar generates code needed at build time, adding the required (source) 
files which are generated from the jar. But not the jar. Also include a script 
or document a procedure how to get those files.
- If the jar is required as a runtime dependency, you could either add a run 
time dependency on a separate package providing that jar or generate the jar 
at build time.

  As per README in that directory this jar generates some code that's used 
PROPOSAL: Describe (or script) the procedure to generate the code and remove 
the jar file.

  The feature looks good, but maybe since there's already a cmake switch to
enable it the java part could be a separated dependency rather that
included in calligra itself. For instance: providing a separate package for
mpx conversion which calligra(plan) would invoke if feature is enabled.
PROPOSAL1: bundling source java files and build jar
PROPOSAL2: depend on external package.

These are binary files which should be avoided in an upstream tarball if
PROPOSAL: remove these files.

  What do you think?

  On these licensing conflicts, Debian maintainers of Calligra decided to 
repack the vanilla tarball, stripping the conflicting files. This is suboptimal 
as well and requires more time from maintainers in order to check that 
Calligra still works properly and workaround possible problems. This have been 
done in order not to loose the chance Calligra is in the main section, where 
Debian free software guidelines compliant packages live.

  Throughout this mail, there have been some proposals. I'm willing to provide 
and review patches fixing the issues if you are ok with the proposals.

  If these all issues are addressed, calligra will stay in the debian main 
section as it is now and we all would be probably happier :)

  Last but not least, thanks to Maximiliano Curia who helped a lot reviewing 
and commenting on this email.

  Pd: Please, CC me on answers.


     Raúl Sánchez Siles
----->Proud Debian user<-----
Linux registered user #416098


Reply via email to