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

Re: RFS: falconpl package (ITP:Bug#460591); source package

Hash: SHA1

Paul Wise wrote:
> Feb 13, 2008 3:53 AM, Giancarlo Niccolai <gc@falconpl.org> wrote:
>> The checks performed by Ubuntu maintainers have been quite
>> extensive and deep, and the package should be ready as is; so, I
>> am requesting a sponsor to forward the package in Debian too.
> debian/rules handles nostrip instead of letting dh_strip do it
> CFLAGS doesn't look like it is being passed to the upstream build
> system
> Shouldn't you be using dh_testroot instead of that weird checkroot
> thing? If not, the clean target should depend on checkroot.
I am sorry; it seems that the very last changes we did in the ubuntu
package (that was concerning this aspects of debian/rules) wasn't
correctly copied to the Debian tree. We do apologize.

About the other issues you have pointed out, we'll work them out.

> Which licence is the "Falcon Programming Language License" derived
> from? It looks kind of familiar. License proliferation is bad, it
> would be nice if you chose another one. If you don't want to do
> that please get the debian-legal list to review it.
License proliferation is bad, but it's a lesser evil with respect to
license fuzziness.

FPL license is derived from Apache2. Among OSI accepted license,
Apache2 was the one covering exactly the needs of Falcon  project
except for two aspects. Embedding and scripting. All the other
licenses related to programming languages either state prominent
exceptions with respect to a base license or leave gray areas between
"derived works" and "embedding applications". The aim of FPL is that
to respect the principles of openness by requiring source to be
distributed with derived works, to be released again with the same
license, and defining clearly what applications using Falcon are not
subject to this restriction.

In short, FPL license is Apache2 opened up for embedding applications
and script writers. Apache2 license may be applied, with the only
effect to leave the status of these two categories of software
undefined, or to assimilate them to derived works (that is, forcing
more restrictions into them).

I have started OSI registration process by submitting the license for
review with regards to OSI lines to a well known lawyer in my country:


Yesterday they said they are nearly done, and I will forward their
report to OSI as soon as it is ready. I have forwarded the license
with my first mail here, asking if there was the need to submit it to
any specific organisms in Debian.

Rationale for the license is here:

Beleive me, I wouldn't have gone through all this if I thought that
there was something that could go, and I did this only because I want
to respect my users and provide them with the cleanest legal stuff I

I don't know if you prefer to discuss the license in the legal list,
or if you prefer to wait for OSI (in which case, acceptance should be
automatic, I think); to me it's ok either way.

Giancarlo Niccolai.

Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org


Reply to: