Packaging Open Sankoré for Debian/Ubuntu

Sat Nov 17 20:17:40 UTC 2012

Hi Cyril,

just a little ping from me (Debian Edu team) on the below licensing  
issue. Any progress on this?

Thanks+Greets,
Mike

On Di 17 Jul 2012 18:42:29 CEST Mike Gabriel wrote:

> Hi Cyril, hi all,
>
> thanks for your quick response. We will be happy to help with open   
> questions if we can.
>
> On Di 17 Jul 2012 03:03:02 CEST Cyril Pavillard wrote:
>
>>> I am supporting Miriam with the packaging work of Open-Sankoré. I   
>>> am not sure if she already replied to your mail (I might have   
>>> missed it). If not I dare to answer your mail von her and the   
>>> Debian Edu Paackaging Team's behalf.
>>
>> Thank you for your answer, I haven't had an answer from Miriam but   
>> I'm happy to get your answer as it's getting here right on time for  
>>  the preparation of version 2.0. I'm also putting in copy M.  
>> Capello  which we had a contact with to help us work on some part  
>> of the  Debian project so he can follow the course of our  
>> discussion if it's  ok with you.
>
> Ok, thanks for completing / enlarging the list of involved people.
>
> Good to know that the point of time is good for packaging.   
> Unfortunately, we by short have missed the Debian freeze for Debian   
> 7.0 (aka wheezy). So, Sankoré will be in the Debian release that  
> comes  _after_ wheezy. We may quite surely provide backported  
> packages ASAP  for Debian squeeze and/or wheezy (I personally have a  
> deep interest in  that).
>
>>>
>>>> I'm really interested by your proposition and we definitely would  
>>>>  love to go on with working with you in order to be compliant  
>>>> with  Debian and your official repositories.
>>>
>>> For Debian packaging several upstream source availabilities are   
>>> thinkable. In most projects upstream provides source tarballs and   
>>> these then are mangled into Debian packages.
>>>
>>> For the current package draft we obtained a Git version of Open-Sankoré:
>>> https://github.com/Sankore/Sankore-3.1
>>
>> Ok, this is correct, I will let Claudio get you some feedback on   
>> this if necessary.
>
> So first thing that would be really helpful are either version tags  
> in  Git or source tarball releases with a designated version number.
>
> Either or is feasible, please provide some information on how to   
> obtain your certified/tested upstream code releases.
>
> Help with identifying your upstream source code release will be much  
>  appreciated.
>
> (And it may just be that my eyes just lack to see the information   
> provided by you. A handful of informative URLs will do.)
>
>>>> We are currently planning to release version 1.4 of Open-Sankoré   
>>>> so we can correct any confusion for this upcoming release.
>>>
>>> I am getting a little confused about the version number you  
>>> mention  above. If the GitHUB repos refers to 3.1 and you to the  
>>> upcoming  release as 1.4 I suppose that there is some inconsistency.
>>>
>>> Do you have upstream tarballs and a respective download location   
>>> for those? If so, please help us with providing such an URL.  
>>> Thanks  a lot.
>>>
>>> Maybe you also can go into details on the versioning scheme
>>
>> Yes, the confusion comes to the fact that the french government  
>> that  is financing the project for now had decided to name the  
>> software  "Open Sankore 3.1" (the 3.1 was standing for "3 in 1")  
>> and had  nothing to do with the version of the software. We finally  
>> managed  to make them change that as it was confusing for everyone.
>>
>> So now, the software is named "Open-Sankoré" and the version is 1.4
>
> Ah... ok. The above is indeed confusing. Good that you got it changed.
>
>> It has just been decided that the next version (which we are   
>> currently working on) is going to be version 2.0 as it will be a   
>> major release with important new features.
>
> Good. What is the ETA for 2.0? (I guess, it probably depends on   
> getting the licensing straight, see below). So let me rephrase my   
> question: what is your favourite ETA for 2.0?
>
>>>> According to our sources/contact, based on the libraries we use,   
>>>> it seems that the use of the LGPL v2.0 licence is the best for  
>>>> now  but any feedback is welcome.
>>>
>>> LGPL-2 is just fine, please make sure that all file headers bare   
>>> the same information regarding the upstream license.
>>>
>>
>> This is a part where we could also benefit from your expertise.
>
> :-)
>
>> We would like to be sure that for version 2.0 we have clearly   
>> complied with the license credit on the software (which you can  
>> find  on the Open-Sankoré menu -> Preferences -> Licences) and the   
>> libraries we're using.
>
> Please provide a location for the licensing information that does  
> not  require the software to be running. Please provide it in one  
> place (or  web-linked well). I will take a look at what you have  
> then (i.e.  license information on website, in upstream source tree,  
> etc.).
>
>> Is there any way you can give us a hand on that as well ?
>
> Yes.
>
> 1. Check our list of library dependencies Sankoré currently needs  
> for  building (field Build-Depends: in /debian/control file):
> http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=debian-edu/sankore.git;a=blob;f=debian/control
>
> 2. For each library look-up its license and provide its name (i.e.   
> make a list)
> 3. Do you include code from other authors inside the sankore code  
> tree? If so,
>    are you in the position of changing the original license?
> 4. Do you ship non-sankore software with your code, if so from what projects?
>    Where is the code hosted in Git (folder names etc.)?
> 5. Do you have non-upstream contributors for plugins? Name the  
> plugin  projects,
>    point to a download location for source code?
> 6. ...
> n. After we have worked out a proper license (I guess LGPL-2 wil be   
> just fine),
>    you have to adapt file headers in your upstream code, possibly  
> discuss with
>    other authors of your code etc. pp.
>
> Other people may add information / needed work. My list maybe   
> incomplete but a start to work on.
>
> Please make sure to include   
> debian-edu-pkg-team at lists.alioth.debian.org. The list does not  
> require  membership for posting.
>
> Thanks+Greets,
> Mike
>
>
> -- 
>
> DAS-NETZWERKTEAM
> mike gabriel, rothenstein 5, 24214 neudorf-bornstein
> fon: +49 (1520) 1976 148
>
> GnuPG Key ID 0xB588399B
> mail: mike.gabriel at das-netzwerkteam.de, http://das-netzwerkteam.de
>
> freeBusy:
> https://mail.das-netzwerkteam.de/freebusy/m.gabriel%40das-netzwerkteam.de.xfb

-- 

DAS-NETZWERKTEAM
mike gabriel, rothenstein 5, 24214 neudorf-bornstein
fon: +49 (1520) 1976 148

GnuPG Key ID 0x25771B31
mail: mike.gabriel at das-netzwerkteam.de, http://das-netzwerkteam.de

freeBusy:
https://mail.das-netzwerkteam.de/freebusy/m.gabriel%40das-netzwerkteam.de.xfb
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digitale PGP-Unterschrift
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/debian-edu-pkg-team/attachments/20121117/cbd24e36/attachment.pgp>