Bug#765421: jmapviewer: Download bing logo via attribution XML at runtime?

[Sebastiaan Couwenberg]

Hi Felix,

> Sebastiaan Couwenberg <sebastic at xs4all.nl> writes:
>> On 10/20/2014 11:17 PM, Felix Natter wrote:
>>> Felix Natter <fnatter at gmx.net> writes:
>>>> => I think we need to investigate that for jessie+1, but now I think
>>>> we
>>>> should parse the "attribution data" and use the included link to
>>>> download the logo at runtime (many thanks to the patch [1] from Marcus
>>>> Lundblad <ml at update.uu.se> and Martin Krüger
>>>> <martin.krueger at gmx.com>)?
>>>> We should really agree on something now ;-)
>>>
>>> --> Can we all agree on this solution for jessie?
>>> (which is probably legal if JMapViewer itself is legal)
>>>
>>> I'd suggest to apply this patch now to make sure it's fixed for jessie!
>>
>> Yes, until we hear otherwise it seems to me the best solution to the
>> Bing logo license problem.
>>
>> I've cleaned up the patch a little and added DEP3 headers for inclusion
>> in the jmapviewer package. When the patch is forwarded upstream we have
>> a nice opportunity to get the upstream point of view on this issue.
>
> Thanks for your help! I pushed the change to jmapviewer git and tested
> with josm (and freeplane).

Do you intent to update the package with the 1.04 upstream release?

JMapViewer 1.04 contains the patch in slightly modified form, more in line
with the upstream coding convention.

> Don Armstrong wrote:
>> At the very least, I'd stick a note in NEWS.Debian.gz.
>
> => Do we really want to do this? I think that problematic
> bing support is not quite new for this package?

Documenting the problems with the Bing logo is a good idea in general.

I'm inclined to document it in README.Debian instead of in a NEWS item,
because the logo was never part of the package. But NEWS items are more
visible thanks to apt-listchanges.

> @Andreas: Could you sponsor this tomorrow?

Would it make sense to sponsor the new upstream version instead of the
patches 1.03?

Kind Regards,

Bas