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

Re: Debian package of OpenBUGS : issue with license of libOpenBUGS.so



Hi Andreas,
Accordingly with upstream permission to distribute the libOpenBUGS.so binary [1,2], I modified the copyright file [3].

I have some questions/problems to finish my package:

-I try to fix "hardening-no-relro usr/bin/OpenBUGSCli" lintian warning using some tips from [4] but it doesn't work... if anyone have an idea to help me?

-As libOpenBUGS.so is a private shared library it seem better to put it in /usr/lib/$(DEB_HOST_MULTIARCH)/openbugs/ instead in /usr/lib/$(DEB_HOST_MULTIARCH)/ , it is right?

Best regards,
Dylan

[1] https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=bugs;c502f8a6.1407
[2] http://sourceforge.net/p/openbugs/code/1018/
[3] http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=debian-med/openbugs.git;a=commitdiff;h=d909b2a19e220584710e0e45dfc161e1b842dc00
[4] https://wiki.debian.org/HardeningWalkthrough


2014-07-09 23:02 GMT+02:00 Andreas Tille <andreas@fam-tille.de>:
Hi Dylan,

as I said I'm a bit reluctant since I try to avoid this kind of
packages.  I personally do not know the current opinion of ftpmaster.
We might try to upload to new and see what they might say if you just
include the copy of the upstream mail.

Kind regards

         Andreas.

On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 09:38:42PM +0200, Dylan wrote:
> Hi Andreas,
> I am in contact with the developers. In order to give us the permission to
> distribute the binary, they propose to append the following sentence to the
> COPYING file in the Linux source package:
>
> "[See each individual source file (.odc) for an exact license statement.]
> All of these sources are GPL-compatible, therefore the OpenBUGS shared
> library libOpenBUGS.so may be redistributed under the terms of the GPL
> version 3."
>
> It's the good way to do this or we need a special permission to distribute
> the binary in a Debian package? For example, if they post a message with
> the permission on Debian Med mailing list it's adequate?
>
> Best regards,
> Dylan
>
>
>
> 2014-06-15 18:57 GMT+02:00 Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu>:
>
> > Hi Dylan,
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 11:17:16AM +0200, Dylan wrote:
> > > > Despite the open licensing question currently libOpenBUGS.so is a
> > binary
> > > > without source as far as I can see.  So the correct way would be to ask
> > > > upstream for the source and remove the binary from the orig.tar.gz
> > which
> > > > we use for the Debian package (by using Files-Excluded in
> > > > debian/copyright).
> > >
> > > I can not exclude libOpenBUGS.so because it is the core of OpenBUGS, its
> > > sources seems to be on sourceforge [1] but it was writing in Component
> > > Pascal which is impossible to compile on Linux for the moment. So, my
> > plans
> > > was to package openbugs as non-free package which include libOpenBUGS.so
> > as
> > > binary. It is impossible to do this in this way?
> >
> > Hmmm, well, that's probably possible but not nice in any case.  You
> > should definitely teach upstream to use FreePascal and explicitly ask for
> > permission to distribute the binary (and add this to the copyright file).
> >
> > Kind regards
> >
> >      Andreas.
> >

--
http://fam-tille.de


Reply to: