Re: RFS: eclipse-linuxtools 0.10.0-1 (new)
On 2012-05-19 19:00, Jakub Adam wrote:
> Dear java packagers,
>
> I am looking for a sponsor for package "eclipse-linuxtools".
>
> * Package name : eclipse-linuxtools
> Version : 0.10.0-1
> Upstream Author : Eclipse Linux Tools project
> <linuxtools-dev@eclipse.org>
> * URL : http://www.eclipse.org/linuxtools
> * License : EPL-1.0
> Section : devel
>
> It builds those binary packages:
>
> eclipse-cdt-autotools - Autotools support for Eclipse CDT
> eclipse-cdt-valgrind - Valgrind integration for Eclipse CDT
> eclipse-cdt-valgrind-remote - Valgrind integration for Eclipse CDT
> (remote launch)
>
> Package sources can be accessed at pkg-java git repository:
>
> http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=pkg-java/eclipse-linuxtools.git
>
> I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Jakub Adam
>
>
libhover/org.eclipse.linuxtools.cdt.libhover.glibc/data/glibc-2.7-2.libhover
is under GFDL-1.1 (according to the Changelog in
libhover/org.eclipse.linuxtools.cdt.libhover.glibc), but does not appear
as such in d/copyright.
GFDL is non-free unless it has no invariant sections[1] (in that case,
please use GFDL-NIV in d/copyright)[2].
Also, I highly doubt that the copyright of GFDL files are """Eclipse
Linux Tools project""" - knowing upstream they have a *very* strong
preference for EPL, so if they owned the files it would almost certainly
be EPL. Failing that, it would be a license with "Eclipse" painted all
over it (like their "Eclipse BSD/MIT" variant) or Apache-2.
I am more inclined to believe they copy-pasted it from other projects,
which means there should be a copyright statement from the
creators/copyright holders of these files somewhere in the sources (I
haven't found it though). If not, I am certain upstream are more than
willing to clarify the copyright of those files (given their IP rules it
should in fact be piece of cake for them).
What are *.dash files[3], do they come with a source and a way to
generate them?
~Niels
[1] http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001#outcome
It does not seem like they declare any invariant sections, so it should
be ok.
[2] http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/#license-specification
[3]
./systemtap/org.eclipse.linuxtools.systemtap.ui.dashboard/modules/*.dash
Reply to: