[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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

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?


[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


Reply to: