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.malate...@gmail.com> Date: Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 9:06 AM Subject: Re: pole_0.5-1_amd64.changes REJECTED To: Ariya Hidayat <ar...@kde.org> Cc: Dmitry Fedorov <fedo...@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 <ar...@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 <fedo...@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.malate...@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 <fedo...@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 <ma...@debian.org> >>> > wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Dear Dmitry, >>> >> >>> >> Could you please clarify the license of pole ? >>> >> >>> >> Thanks very much. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> >> From: Thorsten Alteholz <ftpmas...@ftp-master.debian.org> >>> >> Date: Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 5:00 PM >>> >> Subject: pole_0.5-1_amd64.changes REJECTED >>> >> To: Mathieu Malaterre <ma...@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 <d...@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 <d...@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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/ca+7wusxk8khyvgljqg_q2oo+8gc33vsgaymfuzsfr4z3rp5...@mail.gmail.com
