[Pkg-tcltk-devel] tclex_1.2a1-16_amd64.changes REJECTED

[Sergei Golovan]

Hi Scott,

1) I'd say that he said that the general tcLex license applies to the
examples as well, but probably you're right. I'll add Neil Walker as a
copyright holder for these two files.

2) It's doable to find the original copyright holder for the Tcl
files. I'll do that and document in debian/copyright.

I hope to upload the corrected package on the next weekend. Thank you
for the suggestions.

On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 7:21 PM, Scott Kitterman <debian at kitterman.com> wrote:
> Thanks for following up on this.  Here are my thoughts on this:
>
> 1.  Add Neil Walker as a copyright holder using the same license (that's my
> interpretation of what he said).
>
> 2.  For this one, I think a bit of research will be required.  The original
> copyright holders of the Tcl files still hold copyright on their work, even
> though they aren't mentioned in the derivative work (removing them was a
> mistake - it's an upstream bug, but it seems like one that's unlikely to be
> corrected given the age of the package).  You should be able to find, with a
> bit of detective work, who they are and add them to debian/copyright along
> with the original tcl license.
>
> 3.  This seems fine.
>
> Scott K
>
> On Thursday, September 05, 2013 15:01:15 Sergei Golovan wrote:
>> Hi Scott,
>>
>> I'm forwarding the answer of the author of tcLex. Do you think it's
>> sufficient? If yes then I'll add appropriate notes with this message
>> to the debian/copyright and reupload the package.
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From:  <fredericbonnet at free.fr>
>> Date: Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 2:02 PM
>> Subject: Re: tcLex packaging for Debian - license clarification is needed
>> To: Sergei Golovan <sgolovan at nes.ru>
>>
>>
>> Hi Sergei,
>>
>> Wow, this is an old project and I don't remember all the details, but
>> here are my answers to your questions:
>>
>> 1) I can't remember exactly what the agreement was, but I believe both
>> the general license and the copyright mentions apply.
>>
>> 2) I think the tcLex license should apply to all code: both files
>> include modified Tcl code plus tcLex-specific code (mostly at the end
>> of the file). According to the Tcl license:
>>
>> "Modifications to this software may be copyrighted by their authors
>> and need not follow the licensing terms described here, provided that
>> the new terms are clearly indicated on the first page of each file where
>> they apply."
>>
>> As these changes are very project-specific, I think this clause applies.
>>
>> 3) Yes, tcLex licence applies as this is 100% new code with no change
>> to the Tcl code.
>>
>> Cheers, Fred
>>
>> ----- Mail original -----
>> De: "Sergei Golovan" <sgolovan at nes.ru>
>> À: "Frederic Bonnet" <fbonnet at users.sourceforge.net>, "Frederic
>> Bonnet" <fredericbonnet at free.fr>
>> Envoyé: Dimanche 1 Septembre 2013 09:04:38
>> Objet: tcLex packaging for Debian - license clarification is needed
>>
>> Hi Frederic,
>>
>> I'm packaging your tcLex for Debian and I'd like to ask you about the
>> license of a few files in the source tarball (see for example [1]).
>>
>> 1) examples/pascal/pascal.tcl, examples/strip/strip.tcl list Neil
>> Walker as an author. Should his name be added to the copyright holders
>> of these files, or the general license applies?
>>
>> 2) src/RE80.c, src/RE81.c contain modifications of Tcl regexp engine.
>> Would it be correct to apply the original Tcl license to them and your
>> copyright to the modifications only?
>>
>> 3) Am I correct that src/RE82.c doesn't contain the code borrowed from
>> Tcl and just wraps calls to regexp routines?
>>
>> [1]
>> http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian/pool/main/t/tclex/tclex_1.2a1.orig.tar.gz
>>
>> Cheers!
>> --
>> Sergei Golovan
>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Cheers!



-- 
Sergei Golovan