Re: Fwd: Re: libjpeg for debian, autoconf
--- Steve Langasek <email@example.com> wrote:
> Hello James,
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 10:05:43AM -0800, James Michael DuPont wrote:
> > Dear Debian legal, Gnu License Violation,
> > There seems to be a problem with the sources of
> > the libjpeg package. It does not have the full source code,
> > it is missing the autoconf and automake sources.
> > Do you allow debian and gnu packages to be distributed without the
> > "full" source code including the autoconf tools.
> > These sources are needed to port the package to a new platform.
> > Can you please advise as to the definition of source code
> > pertaining to the autoconf's configure.in?
> Thank you for your expression of interest in the license-compliance
> Debian packages. The libjpeg library is not licensed under the GPL,
> and therefore does not carry with it a requirement that we distribute
> particular components as part of the source when we distribute
> (i.e., the GPL "preferred form for modification" clause).
well, I did overlook that. I have my GPL glasses on. Sorry :)
> license of autoconf contains the following exception:
> As a special exception, the Free Software Foundation gives
> permission to copy, distribute and modify the configure scripts
> are the output of Autoconf. You need not follow the terms of the
> General Public License when using or distributing such scripts,
> though portions of the text of Autoconf appear in them. The GNU
> General Public License (GPL) does govern all other use of the
> that constitutes the Autoconf program.
I have seen that. Of course if the tool is not GPL, and the
debian does not have the same stringent requrements for source packages
as GPL, then it is not an issue.
> As far as I'm able to determine from the source package, libjpeg does
> use automake for any of its build scripts.
OK, well for the porting to mingw32, I had to change some of the
makefiles and such.
> Therefore, I do not believe that our distribution of libjpeg in its
> present form constitutes a violation of the licenses of either
> or libjpeg. The absence of the configure.in used to generate the
> configure script is a bit of a nuisance, but I'm not sure it's
> substantial enough to regard this as not being DFSG-compliant.
> other list subscribers will weigh in if they disagree with me on this
> point. If it is regarded as making the software non-free, I'm sure a
> free replacement can be reconstituted with ease. I volunteer to help
> with this if necessary.
I have also written to the authors and offered to re-do the
configure.in, as you might have seen in my attached email.
I dont want to cause any problems, and have offered myself to help with
the situation. Just wanted to know how you feel about this, and if it
is an issue.
You can find our cross compiler windows ported packages
here, I hope to make them part of the debian system at some time.
The reason why I am re-doing the port of these tools to windows is the
lack of the source codes and the general disrespect of the section3 of
the GPL in the windows community. The goal is to re-port the DIA tool
to windows. I hope to make it easier to compile these tools for windows
and distribute the sources in a way that is GPL compilant.
James Michael DuPont
Do you Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now