Re: RFS: squirrel-sql
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On 2011-02-22 11:26, Vladimir KOTOV wrote:
> Hi Niels,
>
>> Has anyone looked at this?
> No, I have no information if anyone has. It would be very good if you or
> somebody else from pkg-java team could take a look.
>
Hi,
Had a short look. The uscan/watch file does not generate a tarball;
instead it fails with:
$ uscan --force-download
squirrel-sql: Version (3.2.0) available on remote site:
http://squirrel-sql.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/squirrel-sql/tags/squirrelsql-3.2.0/
(local version is 3.2.0)
squirrel-sql: Successfully downloaded updated package squirrelsql-3.2.0
svn: XML parsing failed: (411 Length Required)
The resulting file "squrrelsql-3.2.0" is an html site.
The copyright file lists the following license (parts omitted):
"""
Sun grants you ("Licensee") a non-exclusive, royalty free, license to
use, and redistribute this software graphics artwork, as individual
graphics or as a collection, as part of software code or programs that
you develop, provided that i) this copyright notice and license
accompany the software graphics artwork; and ii) you do not utilize
the software graphics artwork in a manner which is disparaging to Sun.
Unless enforcement is prohibited by applicable law, you may not modify
the graphics, and must use them true to color and unmodified in every
way.
"""
At very least the "you may not modify the graphics" fails DFSG and have
a feeling that its "usage" restriction might also violate DFSG. Either
the package has to be moved to non-free, the files replaced/re-licensed
or (if the package works without them) remove them from the source
without replacement and add a +dfsg to the version.
You probably want to ping upstream about these.
Also from the copyright file:
"""
Files:
app/src/main/resources/net/sourceforge/squirrel_sql/client/resources/images/eclipse/*
License: CPL-1.0
Files:
app/src/main/resources/net/sourceforge/squirrel_sql/client/resources/images/jb/*
Copyright: 1998, Dean S. Jones
"""
Missing a copyright and a license field for these.
Then there is:
"""
Files:
fw/src/main/java/net/sourceforge/squirrel_sql/fw/completion/PopupManager.java
Copyright: 1997-2000, Sun Microsystems, Inc.
License: Sun Public License Version 1.0
Comment: We have contacted the upstream authors Rob Manning and Gerd
Wagner regarding the source
from which this derived work was created. The original file is
PopupManager.java,
part of the NetBeans software (http://netbeans.org/). The file is no
longer distributed under the SPL,
but instead under a GPL-like license.
"""
What is the status here? Personally I am not comfortable with a "it
might be this or that license". If it is (or remains) Sun Public
License, then said license is missing from d/copyright file.
Then I believe dep-5 copyright files require you to use " ." for "empty
lines" in licenses files (same as is done in the Description field of
d/control).
The "-rm -fr debian/tmp" line in the clean target is redundant; dh_clean
(from debhelper) will take care of removing that.
001-squirrelsql-jgoodies.patch contain a number of changes that are
merely whitespace changes (usually removing an extra space at the end of
a line etc); these are rather disturbing particularly in large patches
as they appear often enough to distract you from the real changes.
I am not really sure what the standing on using the "List" as author of
patches. It seems most appropriate that you list the actual authors
unless they have reassigned their copyright (if any) of that patch to
the team (or you pulled the patch from a mail on the list, though in
that case you should list to the particular email or the message-id of
the mail).
That is all for now. :)
~Niels
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJNaQuAAAoJEAVLu599gGRC5iAP/33/KqJe5NfX85rF+276RhPJ
Rkj9B+2AXLUMFbko7hYZUxPHRJF6bX/3Tmcwyn9frZFAPiK+IlREMfunnniQQ5vP
xqoIv7baSGRvQKJJQ8DBvSJnuQqMr4D74+w2lgq2Z9W1J08Cxg4su7Py+VLYQshf
PlQHcJLt5IiGb/pA+7NVbY9137N0tgJthqKUhaX0yNhhD9FxHnPzf0I/Ix+2A2qc
Ew0q5xGbLFyuro8sd5jmdFp696FMqC5n2DTiFV7BdeKqKJKIWmk82XTzqn2omb2C
wrETD9KB+gXh5PmXeHPi8NfexGzBXD8NBIFU6ee7gqwymwjUWlteMCuch5fmjyzZ
MxFOWxfaJV8VZibP0j7DfJviWOGXfUGIXvtKpYHq9LfqPED9cPY85hZQFTOG94b3
NMv0KF1jTjgGABlkH6rk8/YlbLMtkG1AdR4Ad4dfdFbxUmJ9zpCG66L6cGLrY1gt
SAvJpq3j0Mk0s3RGSvDCp6otH2GaFG4TelanSNIwBONVLS06vleyo67k7C6R6D00
mEas9Qj/yYn1aH3LQmoLCD6Q0/QE+BDvDiNL76J72jLFzR9ujrgOSQxNqVyU7poU
xSFGLveyIt82KxXIQ75VLC/YG4Fd5eJLshK1YE1958qlHu+tdja2Sz6ATx7RPAxI
SGn0/Cv664V3cWmy2eY/
=XGAx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: