On 13/06/17 17:55, James Cameron wrote: > G'day Sebastian, Good evening James, > Is this license combination compatible? GPLv3+ of Physics [1] with an > embedded binary of pybox2d [2] under a zlib license. I've no idea why you would ask me this, I am neither a licensing expert nor, yet, a contributor to Physics. I'm guessing because I am interested in Debian packaging? Indeed Physics in Debian would be nice!
According to https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ZLib : "License of ZLib (#ZLib): This is a free software license, and compatible with the GPL." > Also; > > - Physics has both COPYING and LICENSE with whitespace changes only, > which are GPLv3+; which should it be? If the contents is the same, either one? > - Physics/lib has LICENSE which is zlib, > > - Physics git, .tar.bz2 and .xo include lib/ binaries of pybox2d, > > - no documentation for building, except in a commit [3], > > I've also a local dfsg branch which changes imports and removes lib/ > to have dist_source write Physics-32.1~dfsg.tar.bz2 which can be > imported by git-buildpackage. If there is any other interest, I can > push this branch and tag v32.1~dfsg, though the toolkit does not like > text in version numbers. Might this be fixed? I don't understand what you mean with your last question. For sure there's interest in having a Debian-Free-Software-Guidelines-complying source to hopefully have Debian distribute this activity. If you could push this branch then it would be a good first step, then we could work together with pkg-sugar Team to upload it. Physics should be among the desired activities for Sugar Blend Huayruro <https://wiki.debian.org/SugarBlend/Huayruro> project, not sure why it's not listed. > References: > > 1. https://github.com/sugarlabs/physics > 2. https://github.com/pybox2d/pybox2d > 3. > https://github.com/sugarlabs/physics/commit/bf4640fd7bd5f29be6afec288ae326b3f5398a97 >
_______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
