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

Re: Osmium packages



On 07/04/2015 04:42 PM, Jochen Topf wrote:
> On Sa, Jul 04, 2015 at 04:35:01 +0200, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
>> On 07/04/2015 04:01 PM, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
>>> On 07/04/2015 03:22 PM, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
>>>>> One change important for packaging: osmium-tool now includes the RapidJSON
>>>>> library. License info in LICENSE-rapidjson.txt must probably be added to
>>>>> Debian package. RapidJSON is a header-only library.
>>>>
>>>> The RapidJSON license contains the problematic json-no-evil license [1]
>>>> that we cannot include in Debian.
>>>>
>>>> Can you change the JSON support to use a JSON implementation that does
>>>> not have the problematic license (libjsoncpp for example)?
>>>>
>>>> [1] https://wiki.debian.org/qa.debian.org/jsonevil
>>>
>>> The problematic JSON_checker utility and  included in the upstream
>>> RapidJSON project is not included in the osmium-tool copy, so the JSON
>>> no-evil problem doesn't seem to actually affect osmium.
>>
>> Despite the RapidJSON includes not being affected by the json-evil
>> license issue, lintian is still triggered on LICENSE-rapidjson.txt.
>>
>>  E: osmium-tool source: license-problem-json-evil LICENSE-rapidjson.txt
>>
>> Removing the JSON license from the LICENSE-rapidjson.txt file seems
>> reasonable to resolve this. This is done in the attached patch.
> 
> Lets wait a day or two on this to get the RapidJSON people a chance to say
> something. If there is no answer from them, I'll apply your patch. But I
> don't want to go back and forth several times, if they have a different
> take on this.

OK, waiting a bit for the RapidJSON upstream response is no issue.

I've postponed the upload of osmium-tool (1.1.1-1), and only updated it
in git, in case some of the headers are derived from json.org code under
the json-evil license.

Kind Regards,

Bas

-- 
 GPG Key ID: 4096R/6750F10AE88D4AF1
Fingerprint: 8182 DE41 7056 408D 6146  50D1 6750 F10A E88D 4AF1


Reply to: