Re: Hint needed for packaging library using maven
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 05:41:14PM -0700, tony mancill wrote:
>
> I was taking a look at JAI as well because I've been having to install
> it by hand at work for GeoServer and it would be nice to have it in the
> archive. However, the copyright [1] for the library restricts the venue
> of use, and so I don't believe the package can be uploaded to main. (In
> fact, it could be that it's not appropriate even for non-free, but I'd
> have to look into that matter in more depth.)
I also had a very quick view on the license and did not stumbled about
things which are that problematic. Which part would you consider as
even not fit for non-free? Probably this could be clarified on
debian-legal list. If I could save your time for packaging (where you
have probably more routine than me) I'd volunteer to bring this up
there. Just ping me about this (and point to the problematic parts
explicitely).
> If I end up packaging it for local use, perhaps it's useful to place the
> packaging into the svn or git repo so others can build their own local
> packages - does anyone know of other examples of this sort of
> "packaging," or if it would be useful?
Hmmm, useful? I'm not sure. We need it as dependency for an urgently
needed package (medical image viewer) and having this dependency
somewhere not as binary package would de facto kill this attempt. :-(
> > [1] http://java.net/projects/jai-imageio-core/sources/svn/content/trunk/COPYRIGHT.txt?rev=254
Ahh, this one has really some interesting bits. I just looked at
http://java.net/projects/jai-imageio-core
which says BSD and
http://java.net/projects/jai-imageio-core/sources/svn/content/tags/jai-imageio-1_1-fcs/COPYRIGHT.txt?rev=254
because I considered packaging a tagged ("released") version and not
any random trunk status. This copyright statement looks better, IMHO.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: