[Debian-med-packaging] [j.johnson at imb.uq.edu.au: Re: Installation of binary tools inside MEME]

[Tim Booth]

Hi,

> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 06:08:08PM +0000, Tim Booth wrote:
> > Yes, I did start looking at Meme but quickly realised it was a lot more
> > work than I thought to do a proper job on it.  I think all I wanted to
> > do in the first instance was to get an updated glam2 binary package
> > based upon the improved glam2 source within the meme code.  I guess this
> > is now the definitive glam2 as the original standalone source hasn't
> > been updated since 2008.
> 
> We might try to do some comparison.  Charles previously mentioned that
> we should keep the glam2 package from Debian which is free (PD) and meme
> currently has a non-free license (according to DFSG).  So if glam2 inside
> meme is basically unchanged it might be reasonable to ignore the code
> inside meme (or asking upstream for permission to backport the changes.)

A quick "diff" across the original glam2 vs. the meme glam2 suggests
that several new options have been added for meme - see
src/glam2_args.c.

I would imagine that scripts within meme rely on these options.  In
fact, a quick grepping shows that scripts/glam2_webservice.pl.in calls
"glam2 -M" which is an option added for meme.  I've not looked for other
examples.

I hope that upstream can at least be persuaded to put their changes to
glam2 under a free license like the original glam2.  They may not be
legally bound to do so but it would be highly disingenuous  of them to
refuse.

Cheers,

TIM


-- 
If you can't find an apposite quote for your sig, just make one up.
     - Anon