Bug#469397: RFS: xbmc
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 8:59 AM, Andres Mejia <mcitadel@gmail.com> wrote:
> XBMC is licensed under the GPL-2+. There are various third party code and
> libraries used as well, documented in the copyright file. There are also various
> files and third party code used with licenses that have non-DFSG clauses.
> None of the licenses makes XBMC undistributable however, which is why the
> xbmc packages are being placed in non-free. Work is being done to resolve
> these licensing issues. See [1] for more details.
...
> 1. http://xbmc.org/trac/ticket/7983
Sounds undistributable to me (not even non-free), unless the XBMC
license is changed to the LGPL or there is a GPL exception for linking
against non-free code.
There are several bits of code that are free software but GPL
incompatible, you need to replace/remove these.
For the RSA MD5 implementation replacement you should use the
implementation from whatever crypto library you link against, instead
of introducing the 447th[1] copy of md5.c into the archive:
http://source.debian.net/source/search?path=md5.c
>From what I can tell from the copyright file, there are also vast
amounts of embedded code copies, please have them all removed from the
upstream tarball before seeking sponsorship again. If that isn't
possible, please consult the security team to ask if it is OK to have
this amount of embedded code copies in one package, even Mozilla isn't
quite this bad. For stuff that isn't in the archive yet, you should
package that instead of creating an embedded code copy.
libdvdcss isn't available from Debian for good reason, it should
definitely not be available in xbmc.
Another WTF was a non-free implementation of CRC32 of all things!??!!
This indicates XMBC is not yet ready for Debian: "Copyright Microsoft
Corporation. All rights reserved. License: UNKNOWN", please withdraw
this RFS and remove the package from mentors.debian.net until the
copyright/license issues are resolved.
> The 'DM-Upload-Allowed: yes' field is set. I am a DM and also one of the
> upstream devs for XBMC. I would like to keep this field set so that I may be
> able to upload this package myself. If any potential sponsor absolutely has a
> problem with this, I would be willing to unset it (or have it unset), of course
> after some negotiation.
The DM-Upload-Allowed field is for sponsors to set after they are
satisfied that you can maintain the specific package well. You should
never include it in your first RFS.
> The package also appears to be piuparts clean, although some dependencies
> of xbmc is causing the piuparts test to fail. Relevant log message.
...
> Packages causing this are 'fontconfig', 'python-support', and 'python-apt'.
It would be helpful to file bugs here if they don't exist yet.
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Reply to: