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

Bug#675762: marked as done (RM: python-cdb -- RoM; licensing issues)

Your message dated Sat, 28 Jul 2012 08:41:17 +0000
with message-id <20120728084117.GC6821@master.debian.org>
and subject line RM: python-cdb -- RoM; licensing issues
has caused the Debian Bug report #675762,
regarding RM: python-cdb -- RoM; licensing issues
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org

675762: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=675762
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: ftp.debian.org
Severity: normal

Please remove python-cdb from unstable, testing and stable.

The software "cdb" at http://cr.yp.to/cdb.html has this "information for

 | You may distribute unmodified copies of the cdb package.  Packages that need to
 | read cdb files should incorporate the necessary portions of the cdb library
 | rather than relying on an external cdb library.

The software "python-cdb" contains a modified copy of part of the software
"cdb".  The files cdb-0.75/cdb.c and python-cdb-0.34/src/cdb.c are different.
The file python-cdb-0.34/src/cdb.c contains these lines:

 | /* Public domain. */
 | /* Adapted from DJB's original cdb-0.75 package */

So the software "python-cdb" must not be distributed, so must not be in Debian.


Bart Martens

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 04:17:21PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I similarly don't agree with Rune's analysis, but djb later changed the
> license in a separate statement on his web site (he did it for nearly all
> of his projects), which clearly does state that all the files are now
> public domain.  So there's no need to parse that statement; it's
> thankfully been superseded.

I find the following on the website and in the tarball :


  |  2009.07.21: I hereby place the cdb package (in particular, cdb-0.75.tar.gz,
  |  with MD5 checksum 81fed54d0bde51b147dd6c20cdb92d51) into the public domain. The
  |  package is no longer copyrighted.


  |  Information for distributors
  |  You may distribute unmodified copies of the cdb package.


  |  cdb 0.75, beta.
  |  20000219
  |  Copyright 2000
  |  D. J. Bernstein
  |  cdb home page: http://cr.yp.to/cdb.html
  |  Installation instructions: http://cr.yp.to/cdb/install.html

grep -riI public cdb-0.75

  |  cdb-0.75/cdb.h:/* Public domain. */
  |  cdb-0.75/cdb.c:/* Public domain. */
  |  cdb-0.75/cdb_make.h:/* Public domain. */
  |  cdb-0.75/cdb_hash.c:/* Public domain. */
  |  cdb-0.75/cdb_make.c:/* Public domain. */

md5sum cdb-0.75.tar.gz 
81fed54d0bde51b147dd6c20cdb92d51  cdb-0.75.tar.gz

At this point I think that it is reasonable to assume that the software has
been copyrighted in the past (20000219) and that D. J. Bernstein has had the
intention on 2009.07.21 to make it unconditionally public domain.

I'm closing this bug now.


Bart Martens

--- End Message ---

Reply to: