[RFH] Re: RFS: jedi-sdl
Hello,
Scott Howard wrote:
> Dear debian games team,
>
> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "jedi-sdl".
>
> * Package name : jedi-sdl
> [...]
> I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me.
I'm currently having a look into it, since it's my fault somehow (I
filed the gearhead bug). I'm hitting a serious problem straightaway for
me: is there any compelling reason why it is i386 only ? (I'm on amd64,
and not very eager to setup pbuilders with arch = i386).
You have missing files in the copyright, such as those:
* ./SDL/Pas/sdl.pas and ./SDL/Pas/sdl_cpuinfo.pas: parts are also
copyright 1997-2004 Sam Lantinga (but it's unclear whether the original
C files were licensed under MPL)
* ./SDL/Pas/fastevents.pas: is licensed under the LGPL
* Much worse, most of the files in Cal3D seems to be licensed under
GPL, which is *not* compatible with the MPL, see the following excerpt from
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses
Mozilla Public License (MPL)
This is a free software license which is not a strong copyleft;
unlike the X11 license, it has some complex restrictions that make it
incompatible with the GNU GPL. That is, a module covered by the GPL and
a module covered by the MPL cannot legally be linked together. We urge
you not to use the MPL for this reason.
* the files in ./Newton/ are also copyrighted by other persons than
Dominique Louis...
* there is an embedded/adapted version of zlib... (whose copyright and
licenses are missing too...)
In short, you're missing for a thorough check of licenses and so on.
If the Cal3D files are linked into the binaries, it's gone, we can't
distribute the package (nor could the original author).
If it's not the case, it should be very clear inside the
debian/copyright file that the files are kept in the original tarball as
we don't need to remove it from upstream's, but that they are not linked
in. Else, it's a REJECT straightaway.
I'd rather repackage the upstream tarball in this case, so we are
*sure* the GPLd files don't end up in the compiled code (and remove the
compiled files at the same time, we don't need them). If that's the way
you choose, I strongly suggest writing a script doing that
automatically, so anyone (and in particular your sponsors) can download
the original tarball and reliably get yours.
Now that I think of it, I am really worried about something:
basically, this package is a rewrite of the SDL library in Pascal, not
Pascal bindings for the C library (that would have been a lot nicer). My
gut feeling is that it counts as a derivative work of the original,
unless I am mistaken. And SDL seems to be licensed under LGPL (I don't
know what was the license of the original files on which this work is
based, but I don't think they were licensed under MPL).
So this package is in complete violation of the LGPL, since, unless I
am very much mistaken (which could very well be, I haven't read the LGPL
in ages) derivatives of LGPLed work should be LGPL or GPL.
I'd like to have more opinions than mine on this, but I really don't
think this package could have been distributed in the first place.
Sorry for the news,
Cheers,
Vincent
--
If you put a large switch in some cave somewhere, with a sign on it
saying "End-of-the-World switch. PLEASE DO NOT TOUCH", the paint
wouldn't even have the time to dry.
-- Terry Pratchet, Thief of Time
Vincent, not listening to anything for now
Reply to: