new version of milkytracker

[Jonas Smedegaard]

On Sat, Jan 08, 2011 at 07:22:10PM +0100, Alessandro Ghedini wrote:
>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:
>> >>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.

Ok.  I was wondering why OSS4 was needed, but assumed you knew better.

...and now you do :-P


>> >>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).

Ahem.  It is documentation, not code.

Besides, licensing is not only if we are allowed to link things 
together, but also if we are allowed to redistribute at all - so if 
licensing is missing, the file must be ripped out from source 
distribution as well, not acceptable to just patch it for the binary 
packages.


>> >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?

Nope.  GPL-3 is out now, but some still choose to license using GPL-2.

Best is to get in touch with the author and get a clarification of the 
licensing, or a statement on relicensing.

Project need not rerelease with that improved licensing info embedded: 
We can just quote an email from the author in our debian/copyright file 
as proof.


>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

Two wrongs don't make a right.

But hey - this brings another issue: Milkytracker should link against 
that system library!  So we can be lazy and simply strip that annoyingly 
licensed code from source (as we are repackaging anyway for other 
reasons).


Please double-check if there are other library code embedded that we 
should patch to link against system libs instead.


  - 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/20110108/20cd67f4/attachment-0001.pgp>