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

Re: Bug#538067: RFS: opencpn

Anton wrote:
> 1. Since we are using dfsg tarball I think the version
> should include "+dfsg" otherwise my pbuilder fails to find
> the tarball. I have added this to changelog.

+dfsg into version name:
as our build will be bit-for-bit identical to one built from a non-
stripped version of the source (the only difference between the
source tarballs being unused mac/windows dirs), I don't see a
point in adding the +dfsg to the binary package version, it
clutters for no reason. (if pbuilder method has issues, then fix

instead of putting the new tarballs in svn, the latest idea is to
put their md5sum in svn and put the tarball at 
('get_latest_from_git.sh' now updated in svn with details about
that which I hadn't checked in)

> 2. src/nmea0183/* plugins/*/src/nmea0183/* have the
> following:
> So it is not clear which license it is under now? If it is
> BSD than which clause version and why GPL header? If it has
> been relicensed to GPL than I am not sure if it is
> possible to do so providing the given statement from author?

We went through this one a couple weeks ago, I believe that Dave
has the answer &/or has been in contact with the author ..

> 3. plugins/grib_pi/src/Grib* plugins/grib_pi/src/Iso*
> plugins/grib_pi/src/ZuFile
> are taken fron ZyGrib and licensed as GPL-3+. Our code is
> GPL-2+ and I think it is not backward compatible. However as
> I understand this item is a plugin, so maybe it is ok, but
> not sure. 

if bundled as a single distribution transparently to the user
it is a single work and just calling a library a plugin does not
get you some magic exemption from the GPL.

IIRC GPL3 for zygrib is a rather new feature, I wonder if the
code was taken before or after that change? If new, I probably
have an old gpl2 tarball of it around somewhere.

> Beside this there are some less hard issues:
> 6. Plugins are still installed to /usr/lib/opencpn
> although empty directory /usr/lib/opencpn_plugins is being
> created.

I will investigate and fix that today.
(I thought I had already taken care of that, maybe I missed
something or the new beta changes in a way I didn't expect)

Also I need to double check the dispersion of the provided docs
after the upstream path change there.


Reply to: