On Sat, Jan 08, 2011 at 07:22:10PM +0100, Alessandro Ghedini wrote:
On Sat, Jan 08, 2011 at 06:46:20PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On Sat, Jan 08, 2011 at 05:56:07PM +0100, Alessandro Ghedini wrote:
>>Files: src/milkyplay/drivers/generic/rtaudio/oss/soundcard.h
>>Copyright: *No copyright*
>>License: other-restricted!
>>FIXME
>
>This is clearly not DFSG-compliant... I also think that it can be >removed and substituted with the soundcard.h provided by the >oss4-dev package (which seems to be free).

Ok, should be ripped out, then. But instead of substituting I guess it is better to build-depend on oss4-dev and patch source to include that.

Yeah, that was what I meant... the code builds fine also against the <sys/soundcard.h> provided by libc-dev so there's no need to add another dependency.

Ok.  I was wondering why OSS4 was needed, but assumed you knew better.

...and now you do :-P


>>Files: resources/reference/xmeffects.html
>>Copyright: INTERNET ARCHIVE
>> 2006, Yury Aliaev 2006
>>License: GFDL and UNKNOWN
>> FIXME
>
>This has to be removed as well (GNU FDL is not DFSG-compatible).

I believe GNU FSL _is_ DFSG-compliant as long as it has no invariant
sections.

Reason I tagged it as FIXME was the INTERNET ARCHIVE JavaScript code
being copyright protected with no licensing!

The code can be patched easily (it seem to not do anything).

Ahem.  It is documentation, not code.

Besides, licensing is not only if we are allowed to link things together, but also if we are allowed to redistribute at all - so if licensing is missing, the file must be ripped out from source distribution as well, not acceptable to just patch it for the binary packages.


>Also, for the generic 'LGPL' what version should be used?

Best would be to investigate what version was actually intended. Lack of that, we should assume version 1, I believe.

Since the copyright years start from 1999 (when LGPL v2.1 came out) can we assume that the version is that one?

Nope.  GPL-3 is out now, but some still choose to license using GPL-2.

Best is to get in touch with the author and get a clarification of the licensing, or a statement on relicensing.

Project need not rerelease with that improved licensing info embedded: We can just quote an email from the author in our debian/copyright file as proof.


The libzzip package in Debian does not provide any clarification [0].

[0] 
http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/z/zziplib/zziplib_0.13.56-1/libzzip-0-13.copyright

Two wrongs don't make a right.

But hey - this brings another issue: Milkytracker should link against that system library! So we can be lazy and simply strip that annoyingly licensed code from source (as we are repackaging anyway for other reasons).


Please double-check if there are other library code embedded that we should patch to link against system libs instead.


 - Jonas

--
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

_______________________________________________
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers

Reply via email to