new version of milkytracker

[Alessandro Ghedini]

On Sat, Jan 08, 2011 at 06:46:20PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> 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?

I think I can do this.

> >>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.

Yeah, that was what I meant... the code builds fine also against the 
<sys/soundcard.h> provided by libc-dev so there's no need to add
another dependency.

> >>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!

The code can be patched easily (it seem to not do anything).
 
> >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...

It's fine for me, anyway it does not do any harm.

> >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.

Since the copyright years start from 1999 (when LGPL v2.1 came out) can
we assume that the version is that one?

The libzzip package in Debian does not provide any clarification [0].

[0] http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/z/zziplib/zziplib_0.13.56-1/libzzip-0-13.copyright

-- 
perl -E'$_=q;$/= @{[@_]};and s;\S+;<inidehG ordnasselA>;eg;say~~reverse'