Re: Intent to package: GGlyph
David Huggins-Daines <bn711@freenet.carleton.ca> wrote:
> Now, back to the ongoing KDE/GPL discussion. (just my newbie-maintainer's
> two cents, but we should remember to be consistent - if KDE goes in hamm
> as source-only, then so should lyx, dfm, and others... a disclaimer seems
> in order in any case)
In one sense, this isn't a hamm issue: we've always maintained that
contrib and non-free aren't really a part of our distribution and
are only available as an aid to people who use our system.
That said, decided to look at all the copyrights on contrib packages.
The following had no copyright files. Some of them had symbolic
links pointing to what would probably be directories containing
copyright files, but I did not investigate further (to find out
if the currently available packages which would provide those
directories indeed had reasonable copyrights). I think that
current policy allows this, and I think that policy is a
mistake:
explorer-icons-kde_0.72-2.1.deb picon-misc_1998.04.20-2.deb
explorer-icons-ms_0.72-2.1.deb picon-news_1998.04.20-2.deb
explorer-icons-orig_0.72-2.1.deb picon-unknown_1998.04.20-2.deb
gdk-imlib-nonfree-dev_1.3-3.deb picon-usenix_1995.04.13-4.deb
gdk-imlib-nonfree1_1.3-3.deb picon-users_1998.05.15-2.deb
imlib-nonfree-dev_1.3-3.deb picon-weather_1998.04.20-2.deb
imlib-nonfree1_1.3-3.deb roxen-pike-msql_1.2beta2-2.deb
iraf-ibin_2.11.1-1.deb roxen-pike-mysql_1.2beta2-2.deb
iraf-noaobin_2.11.1-1.deb roxen-pike-pg_1.2beta2-2.deb
netscape3_3.04-3.deb
The following had unusually named, but recognizable oddball copyright
files:
metro-motif-aout_2.0-2.deb metro-motif-devel_2.0-2.deb
metro-motif-bin_2.0-2.deb metro-motif-lib_2.0-2.deb
metro-motif-demobin_2.0-2.deb metro-motif-man_2.0-2.deb
metro-motif-demosrc_2.0-2.deb netscape4_4.0-12.deb
Most of the remainder had GPL licenses. But I was shocked to find that
most had *only* GPL licenses. If that was really the case, then these
should go in main. Otherwise, I think most of these need the LGPL license
(even the installers.. it just doesn't make sense to GPL them). Now this
is an issue I wouldn't mind putting past RMS and his lawyer... once we
document what the license issues really are:
atari800_0.8.6-2.deb libdbd-msql-perl_0.91-5.deb
auto-pgp_1.04-1.deb lyx_0.12.0.final-0.1.deb
ddd-dmotif_2.2.3-2.deb m-tx_0.30a-3.deb
ddd-smotif_2.2.3-2.deb mailcrypt_3.4-4.deb
dfm_0.9.1-4.deb mrtg_2.5.2-1.deb
doom-musserver_1.0-7.deb msqlperl_0.91-5.deb
explorer_0.72-2.1.deb musixlyr_1.10-1.deb
ftpwatch_1.3.deb php3-gd_3.0-1.deb
gstep-base-dev_0.5.0.980520-1.deb php3-mysql_3.0-1.deb
gstep-base-examples_0.5.0.980520-1.deb pinepgp_3.3.deb
gstep-base_0.5.0.980520-1.deb pppload_1.0-5.deb
gstep-extensions-dev_0.5.0.980520-1.deb quake-lib-stub_1.9.deb
gstep-extensions_0.5.0.980520-1.deb qweb_1.3-3.deb
gstep-gui-dev_0.5.0.980520-1.deb roxen-pike_1.2beta2-2.deb
gstep-gui_0.5.0.980520-1.deb roxen_1.2beta2-2.deb
gstep-make_0.5.0.980520-1.deb rvplayer_5.0-2.deb
gstep-xdps-dev_0.5.0.980520-1.deb sdc_1.0.8beta-7.deb
gstep-xdps-examples_0.5.0.980520-1.deb splay_0.8.2-1.deb
gstep-xdps_0.5.0.980520-1.deb staroffice3_3.1-8.deb
kdebase_980312-8.deb tcpquota_1.6.13-2.deb
kdegames_980310-3.deb vice_0.13.0-2.deb
kdegraphics_980312-3.deb xexec_0.0.3-7.deb
kdelibs0g-dev_980312-5.deb xfmix_0.2-1.deb
kdelibs0g_980312-5.deb xirc_2.0-3.deb
kdemultimedia_980331-1.deb xisp_2.1-1.deb
kdenetwork_980328-1.deb xldlas_0.85-2.deb
kdeutils_980312-6.deb xmysql_1.8-1.deb
kpppload_1.01-5.deb xsidplay_1.1.5-1.deb
libdbi-perl_0.92-2.deb
I don't think we should hold up hamm for this, but I don't
think we should be making cds with these binaries on them.
Then again, some of these I think belong in main (libdbi-perl,
roxen-pike, and roxen were ones I recognized).
Note that reading over this many copyright licenses is tiring.
I may have made some mistakes.
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: