Comments regarding freehep-swing_2.0.3-1_amd64.changes

[Barry deFreese]

Giovanni Mascellani wrote:
> Did you receive my last email concerning freehep-swing (quoted below)? I
> didn't receive any answer, is this because you have no time for it or
> because there were technical problems with email?
> 
> Giovanni.

Sorry, I may have missed it, my apologies.

> 
> Giovanni Mascellani ha scritto:
>> Hi,
>>
>> (Cc:-ing Gabriele Giacone, comaintainer with me)
>>
>> Barry deFreese ha scritto:
>>> Hello maintainer,
>>>
>>> The orig.tar.gz for FreeHEP swing doesn't seem to carry a LICENSE or COPYING file and I cannot find any mention of the GPL in any headers.  Where are you getting that it is licensed under the LGPL 2.1?
>> Here is the license statement:
>>
>> http://java.freehep.org/license.html
>>
>> And here the team:
>>
>> http://java.freehep.org/team-list.html
>>
>> I've contacted upstream authors (Mark Donszelmann) about the fact that
>> license pages talks about LGPL-2.1 and contains LGPL-3. He answered me
>> that the whole freehep is under LGPL-2.1 and that he would had updated
>> the license page (but he didn't).
>>
I don't remember the specific issue to be honest.  The best thing to do then
would be to cite in debian/copyright which files are LGPL-2.1 and which are
LGPL-3.  Apparently not having the full text of the license if it can be proven
is OK, though I am not sure I agree with it so just re-upload.


>>> Also, you are missing at least a couple of copyright holders in debian/copyright.  CERN and SLAC.
>> Should I cite them? I cited the "real" authors (working for CERN or SLAC
>> or other institutions), and nothing tells me that these institutions
>> have a share on the copyright. Should I write upstream to clarify this?
>>
Author <> Copyright holder.  As an example I have authored code for gnumach and
Hurd but I do not hold copyright on the code.


>> Other similar packages freehep-{chartableconverter-plugin,util,io} have
>> already been accepted by FTP masters and are in the database. They're in
>> a situation almost identical to this.
>>
Each of us have a little different view on problems so sometimes things get
accepted and some don't.  As I said, earlier, if the license can be proven and
the license doesn't specifically state that a copy of the license MUST accompany
the source, it is apparently OK. (This was news to me.)


>> Thank you, Giovanni.
> 
> 
In other words a simple re-upload and it may be accepted, though again I would
suggest adding the actual copyright holders and mentioning any differences in
license versions in debian/copyright.

Thanks, and sorry for the delayed response.

Barry deFreese
Debian FTP Assistant