<div dir="ltr"><div>Hi,<br></div><div><br>I would approve of backporting those improvements with the more permissive license. But I didn't make most (any?) of them. I also believe the improvements are all cosmetic changes to the interface, not changes to the algorithm.<br>
<br></div>Have a nice day,<br>Martin Frith<br><a href="http://www.cbrc.jp/~martin/">http://www.cbrc.jp/~martin/</a><br><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 10:51 AM, James Johnson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:j.johnson@imb.uq.edu.au" target="_blank">j.johnson@imb.uq.edu.au</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Hi Tim, Dave,<br>
<br>
The Debian Med Packaging Team want to know if they can backport
GLAM2 improvements (presuming there are any?) in the MEME Suite to
the more permissively licensed GLAM2 repository?<br>
<br>
~James<br>
<div><br>
-------- Original Message --------
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th nowrap valign="BASELINE" align="RIGHT">Subject:
</th>
<td>Re: [<a href="mailto:j.johnson@imb.uq.edu.au" target="_blank">j.johnson@imb.uq.edu.au</a>: Re: Installation of binary
tools inside MEME]</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th nowrap valign="BASELINE" align="RIGHT">Date: </th>
<td>Fri, 15 Feb 2013 11:04:58 +0000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th nowrap valign="BASELINE" align="RIGHT">From: </th>
<td>Tim Booth <a href="mailto:avarus@fastmail.fm" target="_blank"><avarus@fastmail.fm></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th nowrap valign="BASELINE" align="RIGHT">To: </th>
<td>Andreas Tille <a href="mailto:andreas@fam-tille.de" target="_blank"><andreas@fam-tille.de></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th nowrap valign="BASELINE" align="RIGHT">CC: </th>
<td>Debian Med Packaging Team
<a href="mailto:debian-med-packaging@lists.alioth.debian.org" target="_blank"><debian-med-packaging@lists.alioth.debian.org></a>,
James Johnson <a href="mailto:j.johnson@imb.uq.edu.au" target="_blank"><j.johnson@imb.uq.edu.au></a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
<br>
<pre>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/<a href="http://glam2_webservice.pl.in" target="_blank">glam2_webservice.pl.in</a> 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
</pre>
<br>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>