[Debian-med-packaging] Please help clarifying licensed (Was: python-dendropy_4.0.2-1_amd64.changes REJECTED)

Wed Jul 22 19:06:33 UTC 2015

Hi Andreas,

In revision 2b42439, I have:

(1) added the test data files to the source bundle manifest

(2) added/extended the LICENSE.rst file to explicitly discuss terms of 
the test data files (as well as other files)

(3) added a note to the README.rst to refer to LICENSE.rst

(4) updated/added the boilerplate license/copyright statement in all the 
Python files to refer to LICENSE.rst.

Before I tag, push and publish a new release, is it possible to verify 
that the current changes are up to spec?

Thanks.

-- jeet

On 7/22/15 9:36 AM, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Hi Jeet,
>
> unfortunately I did not received any answer from ftpmaster what to do
> next.  Since I really want to run the test suite when the package is
> built I wonder whether you could include the needed data files right
> into the download tarball and add the information you gave below about
> the license of these data.  This would solve the trouble ftpmaster
> seems to see in these "extra data files".
>
> Is this an option you would consider as possible?
>
> Sorry for the long delay but I have no influence on this.
>
> Kind regards
>
>         Andreas.
>
> On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 08:40:58AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
>> Hi Jeet,
>>
>> thanks for the clarification.s
>>
>> Thorsten, would you accept this clasrification regarding the license of
>> the code as well as the data in d/copyright?
>>
>> Kind regards
>>
>>          Andreas.
>>
>> On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 08:45:30AM -0400, Jeet Sukumaran wrote:
>>> (1) The original DendroPy package was released under the GPL license. Later,
>>> at the request of some folks who wanted to use the code under a less
>>> restrictive license, we re-licensed it under BSD. The GPL boilerplate
>>> remains in some files. But this is an artifact/detritus. I agree this is
>>> confusing, and should be cleaned up. Will do so, but may not be able to get
>>> to it before next week.
>>>
>>> (2) The test data files  have all been (a) sourced from public domain data,
>>> (b) obtained as part of example data bundled with other applications, and
>>> typically having been used in published analyses (c) generated using
>>> analysis programs from public domain data.
>>>
>>> In the case of (a), the data is from GenBank, and thus in public domain.
>>> Where possible, we have maintained citation information for the original
>>> authors/work that generated the data.
>>>
>>> In the case of (b), the original data is also available from the public
>>> domain. Where possible, we have maintained citation information for the
>>> original authors/work that generated the data.
>>>
>>> In the case of (c), no program we have used places any restriction on their
>>> output. We maintain the generated text ("File generated by DnaSp ... etc")
>>> to track provenance.
>>>
>>> So, in all cases that I am aware of, the test data is public domain. We do
>>> not have any verbage to explicitly state this. Will adding such verbage be
>>> sufficient? I think this is a much simpler solution that splitting the test
>>> data files.
>>>
>>> On 7/11/15 7:50 AM, Andreas Tille wrote:
>>>> Hi Jeet,
>>>>
>>>> since we had quite productive discussion about DendroPy I think we could
>>>> sort out the things quite quickly.  As you can see below the Debian
>>>> ftpmaster found some files with license statements deriving from the
>>>> main BSD-3-clause.  Before I mention these explicitly (which would be a
>>>> valid solution for the mentioned concerns) I wonder whether these
>>>> differences might be simply by accidence and you would rather intend to
>>>> change the license at your side.
>>>>
>>>> Regarding the tests I have another suggestion.  When I did the upload
>>>> that was rejected I introduced a data set I obtained via the following
>>>> script:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> #!/bin/sh -e
>>>> TAR=DendroPy-test-data.tar.xz
>>>> rm -rf DendroPy ${TAR}
>>>> git clone https://github.com/pranjalv123/DendroPy.git
>>>> cd DendroPy
>>>> tar --owner=root --group=root --mode=a+rX -caf ../${TAR} dendropy/test/data
>>>> cd ..
>>>> rm -rf DendroPy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This was needed to run the unit tests which is usually a part of the
>>>> Debian package build process.  For the moment I droped this data set and
>>>> switched of the test.  I would like to suggest to provide a workaround
>>>> for the case that the test data are missing.  Some kind of printing
>>>>
>>>> ===================================================================
>>>> The unit tests can not be run without the test data tat are missing
>>>> cuurently.  If you want to obtain these data you could use the
>>>> following code:
>>>>    < script above or something like that >
>>>> ===================================================================
>>>>
>>>> IMHO this would be an advantage for all DendroPy users in general.
>>>>
>>>> In any case it would make sense to drop some explicit LICENSE file
>>>> in the testdata directories to clarify the additional concern of
>>>> Debian ftpmaster in case we might decide to add these data at some
>>>> later point of time.
>>>>
>>>> Kind regards
>>>>
>>>>         Andreas.
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 10:00:15PM +0000, Thorsten Alteholz wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Andreas,
>>>>>
>>>>> dendropy/test/__main__.py says something about a GPL-3+ license.
>>>>> applications/sumtrees/sumtrees.py doesn't know what it is, but maybe also GPL-3+.
>>>>> dendropy/utility/container.py wants to be partly licensed under Apache-2.
>>>>>
>>>>> 8MB testdata (with comments like: "File generated by DnaSP Ver. 4.00.3, from file: COII_Apes.nex")
>>>>> and with no license information do not belong into the debian-directory ..
>>>>>
>>>>>    Thorsten
>>>>>
>>>>> ===
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Debian-med-packaging mailing list
>>>>> Debian-med-packaging at lists.alioth.debian.org
>>>>> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-med-packaging
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------
>>> Jeet Sukumaran
>>> --------------------------------------
>>> jeetsukumaran at gmail.com
>>> --------------------------------------
>>> Blog/Personal Pages:
>>>     http://jeetworks.org/
>>> GitHub Repositories:
>>>     http://github.com/jeetsukumaran
>>> Photographs (as stream):
>>>     http://www.flickr.com/photos/jeetsukumaran/
>>> Photographs (by galleries):
>>>     http://www.flickr.com/photos/jeetsukumaran/sets/
>>> --------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> http://fam-tille.de
>

-- 

--------------------------------------
Jeet Sukumaran
--------------------------------------
jeetsukumaran at gmail.com
--------------------------------------
Blog/Personal Pages:
    http://jeetworks.org/
GitHub Repositories:
    http://github.com/jeetsukumaran
Photographs (as stream):
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/jeetsukumaran/
Photographs (by galleries):
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/jeetsukumaran/sets/
--------------------------------------