Bug#416079: Fwd: pole_0.5-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

[Mathieu Malaterre <malat@debian.org>]

Control: nowner -1
Control: retitle -1 RFP: pole -- portable library for structured storage

For later reference I've included the full thread. Because I did not
get any asnwer, I am giving up on this package.


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Mathieu Malaterre <mathieu.malaterre@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 9:06 AM
Subject: Re: pole_0.5-1_amd64.changes REJECTED
To: Ariya Hidayat <ariya@kde.org>
Cc: Dmitry Fedorov <fedorov@ece.ucsb.edu>


$ licensecheck poleview.cpp
poleview.cpp: BSD (3 clause)


This was the first time I ever saw a header file licensed under GPL
while the actual implementation (*.cpp) was under BSD.

So in summary:

1. pole was release under GPL (lib+apps)
2. Back in 2005, portion of the pole tarball was re-licensed to BSD
3. This was a mistake that poleview.cpp was relicensed to BSD

In which case please update the poleview.cpp accordingly, and please
specify in the main `LICENSE` that the tarball contains multiple
licenses.

BTW pole (pole.cpp) is not a lib, since it would require a clear ABI,
which does not seems to be specified so far.

Regards.



On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 6:59 PM, Ariya Hidayat <ariya@kde.org> wrote:
> Hi Mathieu and Dmitry,
>
> The BSD license change only applies to POLE library. The viewer itself
> (POLEview) is not a critical part of the library. If the license is an
> issue, it can be packaged separately.
>
> I hope that helps.
>
> Thank you!
>
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 8:34 AM, Dmitry Fedorov <fedorov@ece.ucsb.edu> wrote:
>> Mathieu,
>>
>> I've pretty much rewritten poleview migrating it from qt3 to qt4 (when it
>> was just released, not sure they even work right now) and could change the
>> license to FreeBSD. Although these view files are not needed for the library
>> itself and could be simply removed from the distro.
>>
>> -dmitry
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 12:18 AM, Mathieu Malaterre
>> <mathieu.malaterre@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear Ariya,
>>>
>>> I am trying to understand what happen in 2005:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>> POLE 0.2 (released March 2005)
>>>
>>>         * changed license to BSD license
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>
>>> Could you please confirm that *all* of pole source code moved to BSD
>>> style license ? We are having an issue within debian, as the main
>>> copyright file:
>>>
>>>
>>> https://bitbucket.org/dimin/pole/src/bb3e28212f6a49b9be07d271b3c7da571846eccf/pole/LICENSE?at=default
>>>
>>> Does not mention that the header file: poleview.h is under the GPL
>>> license. We thus have two options:
>>>
>>> 1. This was a mistake that poleview.h remains under the GPL license
>>> 2. This was a mistake the the main license file does not mention pole
>>> is under an hybrid license (BSD+GPL).
>>>
>>> Thanks for clarification.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 6:51 AM, Dmitry Fedorov <fedorov@ece.ucsb.edu>
>>> wrote:
>>> > Hi Mathieu,
>>> >
>>> > The license is super permissive, it's basically like MIT, it was set by
>>> > the
>>> > original developer:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > https://bitbucket.org/dimin/pole/src/bb3e28212f6a49b9be07d271b3c7da571846eccf/pole/LICENSE?at=default
>>> >
>>> > poleview.h and poleview.cpp are really not a part of the library but
>>> > merely
>>> > viewer demos.
>>> >
>>> > -dmitry
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 8:03 AM, Mathieu Malaterre <malat@debian.org>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Dear Dmitry,
>>> >>
>>> >> Could you please clarify the license of pole ?
>>> >>
>>> >> Thanks very much.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> >> From: Thorsten Alteholz <ftpmaster@ftp-master.debian.org>
>>> >> Date: Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 5:00 PM
>>> >> Subject: pole_0.5-1_amd64.changes REJECTED
>>> >> To: Mathieu Malaterre <malat@debian.org>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Hi Mathieu,
>>> >>
>>> >> unfortunately I have to reject your package.
>>> >>
>>> >> According to the file header, pole/poleview.h is licensed under
>>> >> LPGLv2+.
>>> >> You should mention that in your debian/copyright.
>>> >>
>>> >> Thanks!
>>> >>  Thorsten
>>> >>
>>> >> ===
>>> >>
>>> >> Please feel free to respond to this email if you don't understand why
>>> >> your files were rejected, or if you upload new files which address our
>>> >> concerns.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > __________________________________
>>> >
>>> > Dmitry Fedorov Levit <dima@dimin.net>
>>> > Web: http://www.dimin.net/
>>> > __________________________________
>>> >
>>> > Center for Bio-Image Informatics:
>>> >   <http://www.bioimage.ucsb.edu/>
>>> >
>>> > Vision Research Lab, Electrical and Computer Engineering:
>>> >   <http://vision.ece.ucsb.edu/>
>>> >
>>> > University of California, Santa Barbara
>>> > _________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Mathieu
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> __________________________________
>>
>> Dmitry Fedorov Levit <dima@dimin.net>
>> Web: http://www.dimin.net/
>> __________________________________
>>
>> Center for Bio-Image Informatics:
>>   <http://www.bioimage.ucsb.edu/>
>>
>> Vision Research Lab, Electrical and Computer Engineering:
>>   <http://vision.ece.ucsb.edu/>
>>
>> University of California, Santa Barbara
>> _________________________________
>
>
>
> --
> Ariya Hidayat
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/ariyahidayat



--
Mathieu