Re: source code of a java app?
Get MIT to release the software under a freely distributable sourcecode license.
It does not have to be GPL, but any OSI type license should be sufficient.
Source code, in my understanding, is required for everything in Debian (of
course some applications *are* their own source code).
While my idea about source code may be wrong, the next part isn't:
When the License is not clear, more importantly, when you did not follow the
license to get the software, it *cannot* be packaged. If they grant permission,
get them to send a license file, or something similar which will make the first
part a bit easier to solve.
-Roger
Quoting martin f krafft <madduck@debian.org>:
> i just got MIT's permission to package Starlogo[1] for Debian. It's
> a Java application to simulate cellular automata and large
> populations on distributed machines.
>
> The problem that I am currently facing is twofold: First, I am not
> entirely sure about the licence, so I've placed it at[2] and would
> welcome comments. Essentially, it is the following paragraph which
> puts me off:
>
> For use by members of the StarLogo Users Group. For information
> about joining the StarLogo Users Group, see
> http://education.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/starlogo-users.
>
> But having downloaded the software, I never had to join that group.
>
> The second major challenge I see in the source code issue. MIT
> doesn't release the source code, so I guess it is not viable for
> Debian. Am I right, and should I push them to release to us, or are
> there even other issues at stake here?
>
> 1. http://education.mit.edu/starlogo/
> 2. ftp://ftp.madduck.net/scratch/starlogo-license.txt.gz
>
> --
> Please do not CC me when replying to lists; I read them!
>
> .''`. martin f. krafft <madduck@debian.org>
> : :' : proud Debian developer, admin, and user
> `. `'`
> `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system
>
> Keyserver problems? http://keyserver.kjsl.com/~jharris/keyserver.html
> Get my key here: http://madduck.net/me/gpg/publickey
>
Reply to: