Re: Files with unclear licenses in non-free
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 5:12 PM, Robert Wohlrab <robert.wohlrab@gmx.de> wrote:
> It has no license headers, it is not mentioned in the LICENSE file and
> http://www.emutalk.net/showthread.php?t=45564 seems to indicate that
> mupen64plus developers don't know the license situation either.
> Summary: Orkin (developler of glN64) put source code online some years ago
> without any further license informations. Mupen64Plus included it in their
> repository and developed it further without changing something on the license
> informations. Arachnoid forked glN64 and has GPL boiler plates - mupen64plus
> developers doubt that this is legal. Nobody was successful at contacting Orkin
> and thus the license situation is not quite clear.
Sounds like none of what happened is legal and glN64 should be removed
both upstream and in Debian. Reading the thread it isn't clear that
Arachnoid's glN64 fork has permission to release under the GPL.
> I am not sure how to compile that compiler or even get the sources (it was
> egcc with some patches or so). So it is unmaintained stuff without a central
> website (if somebody knows a working, open-source and well maintained project
> then please create a rfp).
Ok, makes sense. I imagine the ftpmasters will require the ROM to be
removed from the tarball then.
If you happen to want that compiler in Debian you could fix the
patches up so they work with recent GCC branches/trunk and get them
merged upstream. Then to build the cross-compiler you build-depend on
one of the gcc-X.Y-source packages and compile gcc for the target. An
example of a package that does this is gcc-mingw32, currently in NEW:
http://bugs.debian.org/529183
http://ftp-master.debian.org/new/gcc-mingw32_4.4.0-1.html#dsc
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Reply to: