Re: RFS: poco
Krzysztof Burghardt wrote:
> Updated once again. I have listed all copyright holders.
good so far. as it's late already (00:28 localtime). i'll will do an
intensive check tomorrow to make sure we didn't miss any file/license.
btw, i didn't found GPL code in the package, so, binaries of the non-ssl
sources are properly distributable.
> i had a loo
> Virtually every file in this library have different licence: BOOST,
> 4-BSD, 3-BSD and others. Even one copyright holder have files on more
> then one license. Do I need to list each file and its licence (or files
> grouped by license)? There are ~800 files to check!?
> I have put licenses for code portions like zlib routines or xml parser.
> Providing which file has which license in such case is overkill, isn't
i wouldn't call it overkill. but if you want to note it more simple down
as you have it right now, we can try if ftp-master accept it.
i for myself have always written them expclicitly, e.g. for your
package, the zlib files would be: Foundation/include/Poco/zlib.h,
> Will copyright holders claim that I infringe on their rights?
we assume they can do that, so we can't link the GPL code against
openssl without explicit permission by upstream. would poco work with
> Should I prepare both ssl and non-ssl packages? Or ssl only?
so, ssl is then not possible, except you could make it work with gnutls.
> Yes, but if it is another upstream tarball should I make another source
although some people do include multiple tarballs into one orig.tar.gz
and unpack them on build-time, i consider this to be quite ugly, so it
was implicityly clear that you'll package it as a seperate source package :)
Address: Daniel Baumann, Burgunderstrasse 3, CH-4562 Biberist