new version of milkytracker

[Jonas Smedegaard]

On Sat, Jan 08, 2011 at 05:56:07PM +0100, Alessandro Ghedini wrote:
>I had a look at the FIXMEs and there are indeed some problems (sorry, 
>if I didn't notice that before):
>
>> Files: src/milkyplay/drivers/generic/rtaudio/asio/asio.cpp
>> Copyright: 1997, - 2005, Steinberg Media Technologies GmbH
>> License: UNKNOWN
>> FIXME
>
>I couldn't find a license for the asio driver, but I think that it can 
>be safely removed, since it is not needed on Linux (this applies for 
>every file under the 'src/milkyplay/drivers/generic/rtaudio/asio/' 
>folder).

Ok.

Repackaging can be done elegantly using CDBS.  Should I do that or 
do you want to try?


>> Files: src/milkyplay/drivers/generic/rtaudio/oss/soundcard.h
>> Copyright: *No copyright*
>>License: other-restricted!
>> FIXME
>
>This is clearly not DFSG-compliant... I also think that it can be 
>removed and substituted with the soundcard.h provided by the oss4-dev 
>package (which seems to be free).

Ok, should be ripped out, then.  But instead of substituting I guess it 
is better to build-depend on oss4-dev and patch source to include that.


>> Files: resources/reference/xmeffects.html
>> Copyright: INTERNET ARCHIVE
>>  2006, Yury Aliaev 2006
>> License: GFDL and UNKNOWN
>>  FIXME
>
>This has to be removed as well (GNU FDL is not DFSG-compatible).

I believe GNU FSL _is_ DFSG-compliant as long as it has no invariant 
sections.

Reason I tagged it as FIXME was the INTERNET ARCHIVE JavaScript code 
being copyright protected with no licensing!


>There is something I don't understand: is it really needed to have both 
>'GPL+Milkytracker-3+' and 'GPL-3+' licenses, since they are the same 
>license?

It is a new understanding of mine, but I believe so: Debian Policy 
mandated including "verbatim copy" of the licensing info.  Which means 
we may rewrap (and I consistently wrap at 72 chars) but not "replace" 
words.

You are right that both declare same licensing, but that is the file 
shipped below /usr/share/common-licenses/ .  The text here is is not the 
actual license, only an indirect licensing _statement_.

Feel free to run it by the debian-legal@ list.  I might be wrong...



>Also, for the generic 'LGPL' what version should be used?

Best would be to investigate what version was actually intended.  Lack 
of that, we should assume version 1, I believe.


  - Jonas

-- 
  * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
  * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

  [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-multimedia-maintainers/attachments/20110108/138636b5/attachment.pgp>