Bug#994277: RFS: complexity/1.13-1 [ITA] -- tool for analyzing the complexity of C program functions
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "complexity":
* Package name : complexity
Version : 1.13-1
Upstream Author : Bruce Korb <bkorb@gnu.org>
* URL : https://gnu.org/software/complexity
* License : FSFAP, GPL-3+, GFDL-1.3+
* Vcs : https://salsa.debian.org/debian/complexity
Section : devel
It builds those binary packages:
complexity-doc - tool for analyzing the complexity of C program
(documentation)
complexity - tool for analyzing the complexity of C program functions
To access further information about this package, please visit the following
URL:
https://mentors.debian.net/package/complexity/
Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command:
dget -x
https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/complexity/complexity_1.13-1.dsc
Changes since the last upload:
* Update to latest upstream version 1.13
* Upstream 1.13 added explicit license to the offending file that mandated
source repackaging in all previous versions which is now DFSG compatible
* Remove gnulib generated stuff during build since there is no repackaging
* Update standards to 4.6.0, no changes
* Bump debhelper-compat to 13, no changes
* Update watch to version 4
* Add upstream metadata
* New maintainer (Closes: #959161)
The most significant change in this upload is avoiding repackaging. The
offending file is a template to generate a web page. The template is not used
during the build, thus no web pages are produced, and the template itself is
not installed.
The produced web page's content would be non-DFSG compliant CC BY-ND 3.0 US.
In upstream versions before 1.13, the template itself lacks any licensing
information besides the license for the generated content. Assuming the file
license from the package license would be ambiguous and thus the repackaging
was unavoidable to stay on the safe side. Also all tools like licensecheck
would see the file as under the non-DFSG compatible license and complain
accordingly.
Since upstream release 1.13 there is a separate license statement in the
template file explicitly stating that the template file itself is under FSF All
Permissive License. The generated content also would be under CC BY-ND 3.0 US.
Since the file is not used during the build, no content is generated from it
and neither the template nor any generated content is installed, I believe that
it is safe to avoid the repackaging.
Regards,
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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=JJdh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: