[Pkg-gridengine-devel] [GE dev] License clarification

[Andy Schwierskott]

Michael,

> On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 02:32:35PM +0200, Fritz Ferstl wrote:
>> terrific news about integrating Grid Engine into Debian! Are you
>> building binaries yourself or are you using the bits we provide?
>
> We have to build ourselves if targetted at Debian's main distribution,
> that's part of the policy.

Are you following our mailing lists announcements and make a build on
top of the CVS tags from our releases/patches? That would ensure that Debain
creates compatible binaries

It's possible that Debian users use Sun binaries or courtesy binaires for
other architecutres not suported by Debian. To help the users to see what
binaires they are using I'd suggest to make a change to the version strings

The courtesy binaries print in their help output:

    GE 6.x[uN], e.g. "6.1", "6.0u11"

the Sun binaries print out

    N1GE|SGE 6.x[uN]  (for 6.1 is currently "N1GE 6.1", will be "SGE 6.1uX" later)

may be a Debian binary could print out another product identifier?

The source code file for the version name is

   source/libs/gdi/version.c

variables GE_LONGNAME/GE_SHORTNAME

>> Per your licensing question: Yes, you can assume that everything not
>> explicitly licensed is copyrighted by Sun and is under the SISSL.
>
> Excellent.  As I said, maybe you can clarify this in some README file at
> the top level of the source distribution, so others do not have to
> wonder as well.

Yepp, a top level "LICENSE" file is a good suggestion.

>> Thanks for pointing out that some files did not contain proper copyright
>> notices. We did a quick check and found only XPM files and JavaDocs
>> missing them. Did you come across any other files without copyright notices?
>
> See http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-gridengine-devel/2007-April/000009.html
> for more information, I'm quoting some of it here:
>
> * html files: These have no license or copyright details at all
>   as far as I can see.

many of them are generated (like in ./doc/htmlman). The missing copyrights
would be covered by the top level LICENSE file.

> * the manpages.  These are Copyright Sun but don't have the
>   SISSL notice in them; technically I think this makes them
>   non-redistributable as I can't find any global LICENSE document
>   in the source tree

We'll look at this. I can assure you you don't need to worry about at this
point.

> * resources files: These are just config files, I don't think we
>   need to worry about them; they're too trivial

yes, correct. Our legal advisors didn't request it to add a lengthy SISSL
header to very short config files.

> * xpm files: These have no license or copyright details at all
>   as far as I can see

will be corrected.

> * translation files: Again, no license or copyright details in the
>   .po files.  In fact, one of them contains this gem:
> # SOME DESCRIPTIVE TITLE.
> # Copyright (C) YEAR Free Software Foundation, Inc. # FIRST AUTHOR
> # <EMAIL at ADDRESS>, YEAR. #
>   SIGH....
> * remaining files.  These need checking individually.

That's of course a copy&paste error. Will be corrected.

Regards,
Andy

> So I think this only involves non-sourcecode files (Mark should
> correctly me if I'm wrong).  With your above clarification, that should
> be good enough for Debian to include it, I hope.
>
>
> thanks,
>
> Michael
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe at gridengine.sunsource.net
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help at gridengine.sunsource.net
>
>