Thanks both Paul and Daniel (hoping it is appropriate to respond with one message...) On 13/9/20 12:54 pm, Paul Wise wrote: > IIRC the Lazarus IDE has a way to do command-line builds, this came up Might be a terminology issue. Lazarus is an IDE that ultimately calls the Free Pascal Compiler, FPC. When it does so, its usually linking the Lazarus Component Library, LCL. So, to build on the command line, you need call only FPC and link in LCL. There also are some tools within the Lazarus toolkit, lazbuild in particular, that will build using the Lazarus project file but even then it is not using Lazarus itself. Using lazbuild does not solve any of the problems being discussed. So, any command line build of a Lazarus project does not use Lazarus itself. All builds use FPC which is, of course, a command line application. I considered a pure FPC build was a more Debian consistent model that using lazbuild. In the case of KControls, the package to install into the IDE is some 5 meg bytes, 80% of that is not needed for a command line build. > Is TomboyReborn the same thing as tomboy-ng? I did not know that tomboy-reborn has approached Debian. Its a fork of my code after its 'author' was refused permission to submit very raw code to to my release branch during the final stage of a release cycle. My license, of course permits that fork. I would not personally work with that person, we had some serious communication problems, particularly about quality, cross platform and use of github branches. > Do we need multiple Tomboy rewrites in Debian? tomboy-ng is cross platform and has a proven track record with end user support. It has a user base. And working scripts that build a working Debian Source Package. You choose. > There are such > unclear licenses in packages in Debian, but usually they come with a > clarification via email about the intent of the clauses. Did you note that TK indicated, in https://github.com/kryslt/KControls/issues/27 that he considered my proposed usage appropriate ? Is that what you mean about email clarification ? Should I mention that in the copyright file ? *** Daniel's Issues > Also, based on Daniel Hakimi's mail, it sounds like the KControls > author may have illegally changed the license, since there is no > indication in the commit message that they got approval from all the > copyright holders and looking at the git history there are a couple of > other contributors other than Tomas Krysl, but OTOH their contributions > don't appear to be large so maybe they aren't copyrightable. Daniel's message is a interesting one. I have sent TK a few 'patches', one or two line bug fixes, that were quietly applied without acknowledgement. I would not, in any way, expect to be classed as an author on the basis of those patches. If Daniel is referring to earlier work than that, well, I cannot comment. TK used to have a blog that offered support and elicited suggestions/bug reports/patches. From memory, it stated that any contribution to the blog implied assigning ownership. I certainly regarded it as working like that. And, no Daniel, the email discussion I had with TK about the license occurred just before the KControls moved to github. While I have the emails on record, they were sent in confidence and I intend to respect that confidence. Daniel, I agree, life would be a lot easier if everyone used standard, acceptable licenses. However, sadly, they do not. I personally think I am definitely using kcontrols in a manner approved by TK and doing so mostly consistent with its stated license. However, if its felt by your good selves that TK himself is not in a position to determine license issues, then its a deal breaker. If you think the current model is untenable, please say so, I need to advise my end users, who are requesting the Debian incorporation, of this fact. David
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature