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

Re: JOGL in Debian

> However, why not just adopt the plain GNU GPL v2 ?
CECILL is from INRIA too and it is also compatible with the french law !

> > > Firstoff, from a technical point of view, shipping the *exact same
> > > code* in two different packages does not seem to be a good idea.
> > > Could this duplication of code be avoided?
> > > Is it possible to link or otherwise use the code included in the
> > > mesa package, rather than packaging another copy of it?
> > Well, it is the exact same code (ie not rewrote) but in Java... and I
> > think JOGL devs prefer to avoid JNI code.
> Then it's not the *exact same code*: it's a translation in Java.
> That kinda explains why the original code included in mesa packages
> cannot be directly used.
I used the words of the guys from Sun on this, but yes, that explains ...

> > 
> > > Anyway, from a DFSG-freeness point of view, that license is indeed
> > > problematic: see http://bugs.debian.org/368560 for the details.
> > > Unfortunately, there seems to have been too little progress on this
> > > bug so far.
> > Do you know if anyone contacted the owner of the code ?
> > Or if anything is planned to fix this issue ?
> I have not been directly involved in the issue: I think that the people
> who participated in the bug discussion should be contacted for further
> information.
OK, I sent an email to this bug to learn if there is anything new !


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=

Reply to: