On Sat, Jan 08, 2011 at 08:27:04PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> 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.

I meant HTML/JS code... but yes, I realised that I said an idiocy after I
sent that mail.

> >>>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.

In the meantime I checked upstream [0] and it seems that the license is 

> >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!

It does. See the use-system-zziplib-and-zlib patch.

> 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.

I didn't find any other libraries, but maybe also the additional/ and 
the whole resources/reference/ folders should be removed (no license or 

Anyhow, I am on my way out the door, I'll do all the work tomorrow.


[0] http://sourceforge.net/projects/zziplib/

perl -E'$_=q;$/= @{...@_]};and s;\S+;<inidehG ordnasselA>;eg;say~~reverse'

pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list

Reply via email to