Bug#689951: Package appears to be non-free
Dear Andreas, I personally would be happy if you would decide for the later because in addition you get a lot of other information and how people might deal together with other problems. After my answer yesterday I subscribed to the CamiTK package only, but reading your answer, I just reconsidered and subscribed to debian-med mailing-list as it seems the best option to improve my learning curve. In this case would CamITK remain in *main*! Considering the fact that you know all these facts - would you volunteer to do the needed steps? I am on a tight schedule this week. Do you think it could be ok if: - I remove the licence offending part of the CamiTK source for the moment (the tetgen plugin) today - I do a better work at the beginning of next week where I could reintroduce the tetgen plugin but using the tetgen debian package instead and correct the two other bugs properly (#689021 and 690830) For #690830 there is a patch proposal and there is also a another way that I would like to try first (that will probably have better compiler specific/multi-arch support). Thanks again, all your help is really appreciated. -- Emmanuel Promayon UJF-Grenoble 1, CNRS, TIMC-IMAG UMR 5525 (équipe GMCAO) Institut de l'Ingénierie de l'Information de Santé Faculté de Médecine - 38706 La Tronche cedex - France Tel. +33/0 456 52 00 03 - Fax. +33/0 456 52 00 55 - B7 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#689951: Package appears to be non-free
Hi Emmanuel, On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 08:47:33AM +0200, Emmanuel Promayon wrote: I personally would be happy if you would decide for the later because in addition you get a lot of other information and how people might deal together with other problems. After my answer yesterday I subscribed to the CamiTK package only, but reading your answer, I just reconsidered and subscribed to debian-med mailing-list as it seems the best option to improve my learning curve. Fine. So in future mails I will spare the To: to your address - you should receive the messages via Bug tracking system and mailing list. :-) In this case would CamITK remain in *main*! Considering the fact that you know all these facts - would you volunteer to do the needed steps? I am on a tight schedule this week. Do you think it could be ok if: - I remove the licence offending part of the CamiTK source for the moment (the tetgen plugin) today If you can remove it upstream this would probably the bes solution. Please note the following: The Debian Release team does not accept new upstream versions for Wheezy in general. So if the change should be successfull for propagation to Wheezy please make prfectly sure that this change is the only one compared to the tarball currently in testing. So you culd do something like camitk-3.0.2.1.tar.gz and mention in the upstream changelog something like - Just removed parts of code which are not DFSG free (no other code changes In the debian/changelog we could refer to the fact mentioned in your upstream changelog to convince the release team that we do not attempt to sneak in new upstream code. Otherwise we would need to backport the changes to the version inside Debian. (In case my advise was not clear enough feel free to ask for further clarification.) - I do a better work at the beginning of next week where I could reintroduce the tetgen plugin but using the tetgen debian package instead and correct the two other bugs properly (#689021 and 690830) May be I was not fully clear. If we drop the tetgen dependency completely (and if I understood correctly the plugin in queston needs to be dropped / deactivated as well) then and only than camitk can remain in Debian main. If there is some dependency from any non-free component (be it tetgen or whatever) the package needs to be moved from main to contrib which is something I would like to avoid. So the action to let camitk remain in main is the following: 1. Remove tetgen fom the upstream tarball (may be also cut the plugin in question as well if it does not make any sense without tetgen). 2. Build a camitk package targeting at main from this source tarball. To gain full functionality we could gain (for Wheezy+1) optionally with 3. Create another source tarball camitk-plugins (or camitk-plugins-non-dfsg or whatever name). 4. Build an according Debian package from this plugins tarball linking with Debian packaged tetgen targeting at contrib and recommending camitk from main 5. You can Suggests camitk-plugins in the camitk package (but not Recommends, which is only allowed inside main) For #690830 there is a patch proposal and there is also a another way that I would like to try first (that will probably have better compiler specific/multi-arch support). This could be done if you are pretty sure about this and the change is obviosely simple and straight to get accepted by the release team. While it is a really good thing to fix this bug we need to make pretty sure it will not introduce new problems (which is the sense of the freeze process). For the time line: I think doing step 1.+2. from above until end of October is fine. Everything else has time because it does not affect the current release. Is this doable for you? Thanks again, all your help is really appreciated. Also thanks to you because without your cooperation we would not have competence and manpower to maintain camitk inside Debian. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#689951: Package appears to be non-free
Hi Andreas, If you can remove it upstream this would probably the bes solution. Please note the following: The Debian Release team does not accept new upstream versions for Wheezy in general. So if the change should be successfull for propagation to Wheezy please make prfectly sure that this change is the only one compared to the tarball currently in testing. So you culd do something like camitk-3.0.2.1.tar.gz and mention in the upstream changelog something like - Just removed parts of code which are not DFSG free (no other code changes In the debian/changelog we could refer to the fact mentioned in your upstream changelog to convince the release team that we do not attempt to sneak in new upstream code. Otherwise we would need to backport the changes to the version inside Debian. (In case my advise was not clear enough feel free to ask for further clarification.) May be I was not fully clear. If we drop the tetgen dependency completely (and if I understood correctly the plugin in queston needs to be dropped / deactivated as well) then and only than camitk can remain in Debian main. If there is some dependency from any non-free component (be it tetgen or whatever) the package needs to be moved from main to contrib which is something I would like to avoid. So the action to let camitk remain in main is the following: 1. Remove tetgen fom the upstream tarball (may be also cut the plugin in question as well if it does not make any sense without tetgen). 2. Build a camitk package targeting at main from this source tarball. Would it not be possible/preferable/easier to convince the release team to remove the non-free code as a debian package patch? If not, as at the moment the upstream changelog is not very visible, should I add a specific news on the web page to explain what happened between camitk-3.0.2.1.tar.gz and camitk-3.0.2.tar.gz? To gain full functionality we could gain (for Wheezy+1) optionally with 3. Create another source tarball camitk-plugins (or camitk-plugins-non-dfsg or whatever name). 4. Build an according Debian package from this plugins tarball linking with Debian packaged tetgen targeting at contrib and recommending camitk from main 5. You can Suggests camitk-plugins in the camitk package (but not Recommends, which is only allowed inside main) That sounds like the perfect idea. For #690830 there is a patch proposal and there is also a another way that I would like to try first (that will probably have better compiler specific/multi-arch support). This could be done if you are pretty sure about this and the change is obviosely simple and straight to get accepted by the release team. While it is a really good thing to fix this bug we need to make pretty sure it will not introduce new problems (which is the sense of the freeze process). For the time line: I think doing step 1.+2. from above until end of October is fine. Everything else has time because it does not affect the current release. Is this doable for you? Yes, I think there is no problem to do that between now and the end of the month. -- Emmanuel Promayon UJF-Grenoble 1, CNRS, TIMC-IMAG UMR 5525 (équipe GMCAO) Institut de l'Ingénierie de l'Information de Santé Faculté de Médecine - 38706 La Tronche cedex - France Tel. +33/0 456 52 00 03 - Fax. +33/0 456 52 00 55 - B7 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#689951: Package appears to be non-free
Hi, On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 10:46:51AM +0200, Emmanuel Promayon wrote: 1. Remove tetgen fom the upstream tarball (may be also cut the plugin in question as well if it does not make any sense without tetgen). 2. Build a camitk package targeting at main from this source tarball. Would it not be possible/preferable/easier to convince the release team to remove the non-free code as a debian package patch? Definitely not. The release team has the only task to accept or remove packges created by somebody else (read: maintainer or creator of a non-maintainer upload). The release team will not change anything inside a package. Moreover: The problem is in the source of the package and thus you can not fix it by a patch. If you prefer it is also possile to create a source tarball camitk_3.0.2+dfsg1.orig.tar.gz which can be created by removing those non-free bits from upstream camitk-3.0.2.tar.gz. We would usually do this if no upstream author is involved and it is perfectly OK as well. In this case you should document the removal in debian/README.source and write a target get-orig-source for debian/rules. I'd regard it less effort to simply do it inside the upstream source that's why my suggestion. If not, as at the moment the upstream changelog is not very visible, should I add a specific news on the web page to explain what happened between camitk-3.0.2.1.tar.gz and camitk-3.0.2.tar.gz? That's OK as well. Just some documentation that no new code is in this new version is sufficient (I havn't checked the surce when writing my advise). To gain full functionality we could gain (for Wheezy+1) optionally with 3. Create another source tarball camitk-plugins (or camitk-plugins-non-dfsg or whatever name). 4. Build an according Debian package from this plugins tarball linking with Debian packaged tetgen targeting at contrib and recommending camitk from main 5. You can Suggests camitk-plugins in the camitk package (but not Recommends, which is only allowed inside main) That sounds like the perfect idea. Nice that you like it. For the time line: I think doing step 1.+2. from above until end of October is fine. Everything else has time because it does not affect the current release. Is this doable for you? Yes, I think there is no problem to do that between now and the end of the month. Fine. Just keep on asking if something remains unclear or you might need any other help. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#689951: Package appears to be non-free
Hi Emmanuel, the package camitk received a release critical bug[1] which you possibly did not noticed. It would be great if you would read the history of the bug log[1] and comment on the usage of Debian packaged tetgen which would enable us to move the package to contrib rather than non-free. Please note that the package will be removed from Debian if we do not find a reasonable solution. Kind regards Andreas. [1] http://bugs.debian.org/689951 On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 01:56:43PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 12:12:35PM +0200, Mathieu Malaterre wrote: Actually all I did noticed is that tetgen is in non-free in debian already: http://packages.qa.debian.org/t/tetgen.html It might make sense to verify whether a removal of tetgen from camitk and rather use the Debian packaged version is possible which would make camitk rather contrib than non-free. Christophe are you in touch with upstream ? Even if Charles mentioned that there are other non-free pieces in the license contacting upstream about a DFSG free license might not harm in anyway. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#689951: Package appears to be non-free
Hello Andreas, First sorry for not commenting on the bug, I have to find a better way to interact with the process, and thank you for all the comments. The use of tetgen is not a fundamental feature of CamiTK (and anyway less important than being in contrib). Therefore the code depending on it can be either removed completely from the CamiTK package (this is an additional plugin). And the use of the debian packaged version is an even better solution, as you suggested. In this case will CamiTK remain in contrib? What is my deadline to do this without offending anyone? Kind regards, On 23/10/12 16:32, Andreas Tille wrote: Hi Emmanuel, the package camitk received a release critical bug[1] which you possibly did not noticed. It would be great if you would read the history of the bug log[1] and comment on the usage of Debian packaged tetgen which would enable us to move the package to contrib rather than non-free. Please note that the package will be removed from Debian if we do not find a reasonable solution. Kind regards Andreas. [1] http://bugs.debian.org/689951 On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 01:56:43PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 12:12:35PM +0200, Mathieu Malaterre wrote: Actually all I did noticed is that tetgen is in non-free in debian already: http://packages.qa.debian.org/t/tetgen.html It might make sense to verify whether a removal of tetgen from camitk and rather use the Debian packaged version is possible which would make camitk rather contrib than non-free. Christophe are you in touch with upstream ? Even if Charles mentioned that there are other non-free pieces in the license contacting upstream about a DFSG free license might not harm in anyway. Kind regards Andreas. -- Emmanuel Promayon UJF-Grenoble 1, CNRS, TIMC-IMAG UMR 5525 (équipe GMCAO) Institut de l'Ingénierie de l'Information de Santé Faculté de Médecine - 38706 La Tronche cedex - France Tel. +33/0 456 52 00 03 - Fax. +33/0 456 52 00 55 - B7 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#689951: Package appears to be non-free
Hi Emmanuel, On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 05:35:18PM +0200, Emmanuel Promayon wrote: First sorry for not commenting on the bug, I have to find a better way to interact with the process, and thank you for all the comments. There are two chances to get information about your packages: 1. Either you subscribe to the very package in your interest at http://qa.debian.org/developer.php 2. or with a rather more team oriented attitude subscribe the development mailing list which receives reports about all team maintained packages http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-med-packaging I personally would be happy if you would decide for the later because in addition you get a lot of other information and how people might deal together with other problems. The use of tetgen is not a fundamental feature of CamiTK (and anyway less important than being in contrib). Therefore the code depending on it can be either removed completely from the CamiTK package (this is an additional plugin). And the use of the debian packaged version is an even better solution, as you suggested. In this case will CamiTK remain in contrib? In this case would CamITK remain in *main*! Considering the fact that you know all these facts - would you volunteer to do the needed steps? What is my deadline to do this without offending anyone? Well, the release team is starting to remove packages with release critical bugs and they start with those packages where the bugs do not get any visible attention of the maintainer. In other words: If you want to have CamITK released in Debian Wheezy than some kind of immediate action is the safest way to ensure this. If you have any problem with this please be as verbose as possible how we could help you to fix the package. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#689951: Package appears to be non-free
Package: camitk Severity: serious Tags: upstream Justification: Policy 2.1 The camitk source code contains tetgen. Which is non-free license: $ cat ./actions/mesh/meshprocessing/tetgen1.4.3/LICENSE ... Distribution of modified versions of this code is permissible UNDER THE CONDITION THAT THIS CODE AND ANY MODIFICATIONS MADE TO IT IN THE SAME SOURCE FILES tetgen.h AND tetgen.cxx REMAIN UNDER COPYRIGHT OF THE ORIGINAL AUTHOR, BOTH SOURCE AND OBJECT CODE ARE MADE FREELY AVAILABLE WITHOUT CHARGE, AND CLEAR NOTICE IS GIVEN OF THE MODIFICATIONS. ... -- System Information: Debian Release: 6.0.6 APT prefers stable-updates APT policy: (500, 'stable-updates'), (500, 'stable'), (200, 'testing'), (100, 'unstable') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 3.2.0-0.bpo.2-amd64 (SMP w/8 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=en_US.utf8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.utf8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#689951: Package appears to be non-free
Le Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 11:56:52AM +0200, Mathieu Malaterre a écrit : Package: camitk Severity: serious Tags: upstream Justification: Policy 2.1 The camitk source code contains tetgen. Which is non-free license: $ cat ./actions/mesh/meshprocessing/tetgen1.4.3/LICENSE ... Distribution of modified versions of this code is permissible UNDER THE CONDITION THAT THIS CODE AND ANY MODIFICATIONS MADE TO IT IN THE SAME SOURCE FILES tetgen.h AND tetgen.cxx REMAIN UNDER COPYRIGHT OF THE ORIGINAL AUTHOR, BOTH SOURCE AND OBJECT CODE ARE MADE FREELY AVAILABLE WITHOUT CHARGE, AND CLEAR NOTICE IS GIVEN OF THE MODIFICATIONS. ... Bonjour Mathieu, the above clause would require a copyright transfer, which is not directly mentionned. Perhaps it is worth asking the author of tetgen if he just clumsily wanted to require that his copyright notice must not be removed ? Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Debian Med packaging team, http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#689951: Package appears to be non-free
Hi Charles, [CCing Christophe] On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org wrote: Le Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 11:56:52AM +0200, Mathieu Malaterre a écrit : Package: camitk Severity: serious Tags: upstream Justification: Policy 2.1 The camitk source code contains tetgen. Which is non-free license: $ cat ./actions/mesh/meshprocessing/tetgen1.4.3/LICENSE ... Distribution of modified versions of this code is permissible UNDER THE CONDITION THAT THIS CODE AND ANY MODIFICATIONS MADE TO IT IN THE SAME SOURCE FILES tetgen.h AND tetgen.cxx REMAIN UNDER COPYRIGHT OF THE ORIGINAL AUTHOR, BOTH SOURCE AND OBJECT CODE ARE MADE FREELY AVAILABLE WITHOUT CHARGE, AND CLEAR NOTICE IS GIVEN OF THE MODIFICATIONS. ... Bonjour Mathieu, the above clause would require a copyright transfer, which is not directly mentionned. Perhaps it is worth asking the author of tetgen if he just clumsily wanted to require that his copyright notice must not be removed ? Have a nice day, Actually all I did noticed is that tetgen is in non-free in debian already: http://packages.qa.debian.org/t/tetgen.html Christophe are you in touch with upstream ? Thanks, -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#689951: Package appears to be non-free
Le Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 12:12:35PM +0200, Mathieu Malaterre a écrit : Actually all I did noticed is that tetgen is in non-free in debian already: http://packages.qa.debian.org/t/tetgen.html Ah, nevermind, the next clause is non-free as well, and the next-next answers my first question. Distribution of this code for any commercial purpose is permissible ONLY BY DIRECT ARRANGEMENT WITH THE COPYRIGHT OWNER. The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. Cheers, -- Charles Plessy Debian Med packaging team, http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#689951: Package appears to be non-free
On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 12:12:35PM +0200, Mathieu Malaterre wrote: Actually all I did noticed is that tetgen is in non-free in debian already: http://packages.qa.debian.org/t/tetgen.html It might make sense to verify whether a removal of tetgen from camitk and rather use the Debian packaged version is possible which would make camitk rather contrib than non-free. Christophe are you in touch with upstream ? Even if Charles mentioned that there are other non-free pieces in the license contacting upstream about a DFSG free license might not harm in anyway. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
