[Debian-med-packaging] [trevor.l.davis at stanford.edu: Re: r-cran-optparse_1.0.2-1_amd64.changes REJECTED]

[Andreas Tille]

Hi Thorsten,

is this answer convincing or do you want to answer yourself to Trevor?

Kind regards

     Andreas.

----- Forwarded message from Trevor Davis <trevor.l.davis at stanford.edu> -----

Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 09:26:19 -0700
From: Trevor Davis <trevor.l.davis at stanford.edu>
To: Andreas Tille <andreas at an3as.eu>
Subject: Re: r-cran-optparse_1.0.2-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

Hi Andreas,

The FSF and Python both consider the "Python License Stack" from Python 2.0
onwards to be GPL-compatible (
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#Python ) and (
http://docs.python.org/2/license.html ) so I'm not sure what the issue is.
If incorporating code from Python you must include the text for all those
historical licenses that are in the Python "license stack" (
https://wiki.python.org/moin/PythonSoftwareFoundationLicenseFaq) but that
shouldn't be a problem since I'm incorporating it into a GPL licensed
project.

Best,

Trevor


On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 3:24 AM, Andreas Tille <andreas at an3as.eu> wrote:

> Hi Trevor,
>
> I intended to inject optparse into the Debian distribution since it is a
> precondition for some other package.  When I tried to upload our
> ftpmaster who is carefully checking the lincense of a piece of software
> that should enter Debian spotted a problem in the file R/optparse.R
> which contains different free licenses which do not seem to be
> compatible to each other.
>
> Could you please check the licensing and come up with a solution without
> a conflict.
>
> Kind regards and thanks for prociding R optparse as free software
>
>      Andreas.
>
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:00:05PM +0000, Thorsten Alteholz wrote:
> >
> > Hi Andreas,
> >
> > I am afraid I have to reject your package.
> >
> > The file optparse.R contains several parts that have not been published
> > under GPL. According to [1] the paragraphs CNRI.7 and BEOPEN.6 are not
> > compatible with GPL. So it seems to be that this mix of licenses is not
> > allowed. But I am open for discussion here ...
> >
> >  Thorsten
> >
> > [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2000/09/msg00484.html
> >
> >
> > ===
> >
> > Please feel free to respond to this email if you don't understand why
> > your files were rejected, or if you upload new files which address our
> > concerns.
> >
> >
>
> --
> http://fam-tille.de
>

----- End forwarded message -----

-- 
http://fam-tille.de