[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#290362: www.debian.org: Please add Root to list of programs that cannot be packaged

On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 02:09:41PM -0500, Kevin McCarty wrote:
> Could someone please add Root (http://root.cern.ch/) to the list of software
> that cannot be packaged, http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/unable-to-package

> the software contains what appears to be code derived from cernlib
> (GPL) [3] and Xclass (LGPL) [4] while having a license incompatible
> with either.

They likely are allowed to use cernlib, however xclass is a different

I had a look at the root source code, here is a copyright notice quoted
from TGCanvas.cxx:

 * Copyright (C) 1995-2000, Rene Brun and Fons Rademakers.               *
 * All rights reserved.                                                  *
 *                                                                       *
 * For the licensing terms see $ROOTSYS/LICENSE.                         *
 * For the list of contributors see $ROOTSYS/README/CREDITS.             *

    This source is based on Xclass95, a Win95-looking GUI toolkit.
    Copyright (C) 1996, 1997 David Barth, Ricky Ralston, Hector Peraza.

    Xclass95 is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
    modify it under the terms of the GNU Library General Public
    License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either
    version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.


This appears to be a LGPL violation.  The xclass copyright could require the
authors of root to release these gui classes under the LGPL.  I don't think
other parts of root would be affected, if they only use the gui classes as a
library, but they might decide to release the whole thing under a single
LGPL-compatible license.

> This is most unfortunate, since Root is a very useful tool and a
> number of interesting projects are based on it, but I don't see how
> Debian can legally package it, even in non-free, until upstream
> changes their license.

I don't see how upstream can legally package it until they change their
license, or rewrite the code that has been derived from xclass.

Reply to: