On 11-12-15 09:07, Rashad Kanavath wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 6:38 PM, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
>> On 09-12-15 18:21, Paolo Cavallini wrote:
>>> specifically what had to be done for ossim?
>>
>> Unfortunately a lot. The current packaging uses a custom upstream
>> tarball from SVN, but the published upstream tarball should be used now.
>>
>> That contains a lot more that just the ossim sources currently used by
>> the package, so an extensive update to the copyright file is required
>> plus possible repacking of non-free bits. The packaging needs to be
>> updated to build ossim from the ossim subdirectory instead of the root
>> (using the dh --sourcedirectory option) at the minimum.
>>
>>
> can't we repack the ossim source and take out just ossim-core. ?
>
> I can take up this task if nobody is there. So far I found the following
> issues:
Which issues are those? You didn't include any in your mail.
I've looked at OSSIM 1.8.20-1 again, and the licensing is a mess. The
website claims that the code is under the LGPL-3, but most files
reference the top-level LICENSE.txt which contains the MIT/Expat license
terms. Some files claim the license is LGPL and reference the top-level
LICENSE.txt which is the aforementioned MIT/Expat license.
Any update of OSSIM in Debian requires that the upstream developers fix
this licensing mess.
Kind Regards,
Bas
--
GPG Key ID: 4096R/6750F10AE88D4AF1
Fingerprint: 8182 DE41 7056 408D 6146 50D1 6750 F10A E88D 4AF1