Bug#668076: reSIProcate packages RFS
On 10/04/12 11:34, Tzafrir Cohen wrote: On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 11:35:18AM +0200, Daniel Pocock wrote: On 09/04/12 10:41, Tzafrir Cohen wrote: Hi, On Sun, Apr 08, 2012 at 09:07:49PM +0200, Daniel Pocock wrote: Hi, I've recently filed an RFS for reSIProcate http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2012/04/msg00168.html I didn't yet try to build it, but at first glance the packaging looks good. One minor nit: The license is a 4-cluase BSD-like license. Is this intended to be a used as a library? Clause (3) from the license makes it *GPL incompatible. Any hope of fixing that? I believe you are referring to this clause: 3. The names VOCAL, Vovida Open Communication Application Library, and Vovida Open Communication Application Library (VOCAL) must not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without prior written permission. For written permission, please contact vo...@vovida.org. Sorry, my mistake. I see that Clause (4) was added (regarding the usage of the name VOCAL). So no advertisement cluase there. http://www.resiprocate.org/License Here is some background info about VOCAL: http://www.voip-info.org/wiki/view/VOCAL I'm not sure if Vovida or VOCAL still exists in some formal sense, and if so, I don't know whether the clause is still valid or even relevant reSIProcate broke away from SIPfoundry and some of the other projects some years ago too, so it is quite independent Can you comment more on the relationship of this clause with the GPL? Does it just prevent linking with *GPL apps, or does it prevent inclusion in Debian outright? As it is now, could it go in contrib or non-free rather than main? Even if there were any issue with linking with GPL programs, this certianly wouldn't have kept it from main (see e.g. openssl and apache). There is a new release candidate, this includes many of the new 1.8 features now, detailed in emails on dev list: http://list.resiprocate.org/archive/resiprocate-devel/msg08006.html http://list.resiprocate.org/archive/resiprocate-devel/msg08008.html I've tweaked the main binaries (repro and reTurn) to write PID files and daemonize themselves, and the config files are now more UNIX friendly, e.g. they support /etc/ssl/certs now As it is a release candidate and not an official tarball, would you be willing to act as a sponsor and upload it to experimental? http://mentors.debian.net/package/resiprocate -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#668076: reSIProcate packages RFS
On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 11:35:18AM +0200, Daniel Pocock wrote: On 09/04/12 10:41, Tzafrir Cohen wrote: Hi, On Sun, Apr 08, 2012 at 09:07:49PM +0200, Daniel Pocock wrote: Hi, I've recently filed an RFS for reSIProcate http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2012/04/msg00168.html I didn't yet try to build it, but at first glance the packaging looks good. One minor nit: The license is a 4-cluase BSD-like license. Is this intended to be a used as a library? Clause (3) from the license makes it *GPL incompatible. Any hope of fixing that? I believe you are referring to this clause: 3. The names VOCAL, Vovida Open Communication Application Library, and Vovida Open Communication Application Library (VOCAL) must not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without prior written permission. For written permission, please contact vo...@vovida.org. Sorry, my mistake. I see that Clause (4) was added (regarding the usage of the name VOCAL). So no advertisement cluase there. http://www.resiprocate.org/License Here is some background info about VOCAL: http://www.voip-info.org/wiki/view/VOCAL I'm not sure if Vovida or VOCAL still exists in some formal sense, and if so, I don't know whether the clause is still valid or even relevant reSIProcate broke away from SIPfoundry and some of the other projects some years ago too, so it is quite independent Can you comment more on the relationship of this clause with the GPL? Does it just prevent linking with *GPL apps, or does it prevent inclusion in Debian outright? As it is now, could it go in contrib or non-free rather than main? Even if there were any issue with linking with GPL programs, this certianly wouldn't have kept it from main (see e.g. openssl and apache). -- Tzafrir Cohen icq#16849755 jabber:tzafrir.co...@xorcom.com +972-50-7952406 mailto:tzafrir.co...@xorcom.com http://www.xorcom.com iax:gu...@local.xorcom.com/tzafrir -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#668076: reSIProcate packages RFS
Hi, On Sun, Apr 08, 2012 at 09:07:49PM +0200, Daniel Pocock wrote: Hi, I've recently filed an RFS for reSIProcate http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2012/04/msg00168.html I didn't yet try to build it, but at first glance the packaging looks good. One minor nit: The license is a 4-cluase BSD-like license. Is this intended to be a used as a library? Clause (3) from the license makes it *GPL incompatible. Any hope of fixing that? If anyone is interested in reviewing or collaborating on this, please get in touch. I'd also be interested to know if pkg-voip-maintainers should be registered as the maintainer for this work. In particular, the packages provide a working instance of the repro SIP proxy and the reTurn TURN server Looks interesting. I see you've already merged your autotool fixes in upstream trunk. Also note that if you switch to dpkg v.3, there's nothing wrong with having a debian/ directory upstream (if it helps them). It just gets deleted at packaging time. -- Tzafrir Cohen icq#16849755 jabber:tzafrir.co...@xorcom.com +972-50-7952406 mailto:tzafrir.co...@xorcom.com http://www.xorcom.com iax:gu...@local.xorcom.com/tzafrir -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#668076: reSIProcate packages RFS
On 09/04/12 10:41, Tzafrir Cohen wrote: Hi, On Sun, Apr 08, 2012 at 09:07:49PM +0200, Daniel Pocock wrote: Hi, I've recently filed an RFS for reSIProcate http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2012/04/msg00168.html I didn't yet try to build it, but at first glance the packaging looks good. One minor nit: The license is a 4-cluase BSD-like license. Is this intended to be a used as a library? Clause (3) from the license makes it *GPL incompatible. Any hope of fixing that? I believe you are referring to this clause: 3. The names VOCAL, Vovida Open Communication Application Library, and Vovida Open Communication Application Library (VOCAL) must not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without prior written permission. For written permission, please contact vo...@vovida.org. http://www.resiprocate.org/License Here is some background info about VOCAL: http://www.voip-info.org/wiki/view/VOCAL I'm not sure if Vovida or VOCAL still exists in some formal sense, and if so, I don't know whether the clause is still valid or even relevant reSIProcate broke away from SIPfoundry and some of the other projects some years ago too, so it is quite independent Can you comment more on the relationship of this clause with the GPL? Does it just prevent linking with *GPL apps, or does it prevent inclusion in Debian outright? As it is now, could it go in contrib or non-free rather than main? If anyone is interested in reviewing or collaborating on this, please get in touch. I'd also be interested to know if pkg-voip-maintainers should be registered as the maintainer for this work. In particular, the packages provide a working instance of the repro SIP proxy and the reTurn TURN server Looks interesting. I see you've already merged your autotool fixes in upstream trunk. Also note that if you switch to dpkg v.3, there's nothing wrong with having a debian/ directory upstream (if it helps them). It just gets deleted at packaging time. It may be better to manage it separately on alioth/collab-maint (Gregor already started a Git repo there), so that people who are not members of the reSIProcate project can make changes if needed. Having two versions (one in upstream and another on alioth) may also lead to confusion, even though it is technically permitted now. However, I don't mind either way. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
