On 11-12-15 09:07, Rashad Kanavath wrote: > On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 6:38 PM, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote: >> On 09-12-15 18:21, Paolo Cavallini wrote: >>> specifically what had to be done for ossim? >> >> Unfortunately a lot. The current packaging uses a custom upstream >> tarball from SVN, but the published upstream tarball should be used now. >> >> That contains a lot more that just the ossim sources currently used by >> the package, so an extensive update to the copyright file is required >> plus possible repacking of non-free bits. The packaging needs to be >> updated to build ossim from the ossim subdirectory instead of the root >> (using the dh --sourcedirectory option) at the minimum. >> >> > can't we repack the ossim source and take out just ossim-core. ? > > I can take up this task if nobody is there. So far I found the following > issues:
Which issues are those? You didn't include any in your mail. I've looked at OSSIM 1.8.20-1 again, and the licensing is a mess. The website claims that the code is under the LGPL-3, but most files reference the top-level LICENSE.txt which contains the MIT/Expat license terms. Some files claim the license is LGPL and reference the top-level LICENSE.txt which is the aforementioned MIT/Expat license. Any update of OSSIM in Debian requires that the upstream developers fix this licensing mess. Kind Regards, Bas -- GPG Key ID: 4096R/6750F10AE88D4AF1 Fingerprint: 8182 DE41 7056 408D 6146 50D1 6750 F10A E88D 4AF1
