Re: Hint needed for packaging library using maven
On 04/12/2011 11:13 PM, Andreas Tille wrote:
> 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.
Hi Andreas,
The bit that I was concerned about is the fifth paragraph below - I thought
there was an issue with uploading software to the archive when export
restrictions exist (or at least if the DD is bound by United States export
laws). There used to be many of these "ITAR"-style restrictions floating about,
but I don't recall the last time I saw one. BTW, I don't see the difference
between the tagged copyright and the trunk copyright - it seems like no one at
Sun has touched this software in quite a several years.
Thank you for volunteering to bring it up on debian-legal.
tony
> U.S. Government Rights - Commercial software. Government users are
> subject to the Sun Microsystems, Inc. standard license agreement and
> applicable provisions of the FAR and its supplements.
>
> Use is subject to license terms.
>
> This distribution may include materials developed by third parties.
>
> Sun, Sun Microsystems, the Sun logo and Java are trademarks or
> registered trademarks of Sun Microsystems, Inc. in the U.S. and
> other countries.
>
> This product is covered and controlled by U.S. Export Control laws and
> may be subject to the export or import laws in other countries.
> Nuclear, missile, chemical biological weapons or nuclear maritime end
> uses or end users, whether direct or indirect, are strictly
> prohibited. Export or reexport to countries subject to U.S. embargo or
> to entities identified on U.S. export exclusion lists, including, but
> not limited to, the denied persons and specially designated nationals
> lists is strictly prohibited.
Reply to: