Bug#742077: RFS: vcmi/0.95-1 [ITP]
Hi Johannes,
vcmi (GPL-2+) with fuzzylite (Apache 2.0) can't be distributed from
upstream. It is the problem. IMHO, you can't make a -dfsg version
because the source code is 'improper', can't be distributed. But, if
the upstream distribute the source code without fuzzylite 4, then you
can package vcmi and fuzzylite 4 (you need use fuzzylite4 as name to
avoid an upgrade to 5). This is my idea.
What is your oppinion, Pabs?
Thank you for your willingness to make the package and contribute to Debian.
Cheers,
Eriberto
2014-09-02 7:02 GMT-03:00 Johannes Schauer <j.schauer@email.de>:
> Hi,
>
> Quoting Eriberto (2014-08-29 17:08:37)
>> 2014-08-29 12:02 GMT-03:00 Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org>:
>> > Please ask vmci upstream to remove the embedded copy of fuzzylite and
>> > depend on the system version.
>> >
>> > https://wiki.debian.org/EmbeddedCodeCopies
>> I thought about it too. This is the best option.
>
> I started packaging fuzzylite 5.0 and found out that they do not offer
> versioned SONAMES (I reported that and seven other bugs I found to fuzzylite
> upstream).
>
> At the same time I asked on debian-legal and it seems to be possible to
> distribute vcmi (gpl2+) together with fuzzylite (apache2) because gpl2+ implies
> gpl3 which is compatible with apache2.
>
> So the only remaining problem seems to be the embedded copy of fuzzylite in
> vcmi.
>
> I agree that embedded copies are not nice but given the following:
>
> - vcmi upstream uses an outdated copy of fuzzylite and is hesitating to
> upgrade to 5.0 because of api changes
> - fuzzylite upstream does not version their SONAME so it would be hard to
> maintain it in Debian
> - the fuzzylite version in vcmi contains their own set of patches which are
> unknown because when fuzzylite was imported into their version control
> system, their custom patches were already applied.
> - nobody else in Debian uses fuzzylite
>
> would letting vcmi include the embedded fuzzylite copy be an acceptable option
> given the other tradeoffs?
>
> cheers, josch
Reply to: