Re: Accepted mmake 2.2.1-4 (all source)
reopen 255955 thanks Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Description: > mmake - Makefile generator for Java programs > Closes: 199875 216534 255955 > Changes: > mmake (2.2.1-4) unstable; urgency=low > . >* Updated copyright file so it include GPL in a correct way, closes: > #255955. This is seriously wrong. Did you read the history of bug 255955 before closing this? Where did you get a proper reference to the GPL from? Upstream has not actually licensed the program under the GPL. I have asked upstream to clarify, and if we don't get a reply, the package must be removed from Debian. Certainly the RC bug must be left open. This package cannot go into release without a proper license. Thomas
[opal@debian.org: Re: Accepted mmake 2.2.1-4 (all source)]
Forgot (or actually missed) to Cc the list with my reply. Regards, // Ola - Forwarded message from Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 20:48:23 +0200 From: Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Accepted mmake 2.2.1-4 (all source) Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Envelope-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hello On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 01:56:56AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > reopen 255955 > thanks > > Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Description: > > mmake - Makefile generator for Java programs > > Closes: 199875 216534 255955 > > Changes: > > mmake (2.2.1-4) unstable; urgency=low > > . > >* Updated copyright file so it include GPL in a correct way, closes: > > #255955. > > This is seriously wrong. Did you read the history of bug 255955 > before closing this? > > Where did you get a proper reference to the GPL from? Upstream has > not actually licensed the program under the GPL. I have asked > upstream to clarify, and if we don't get a reply, the package must be > removed from Debian. Certainly the RC bug must be left open. This > package cannot go into release without a proper license. [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/build/debian/_qa/mmake-2.2.1$ ls -l GNUGPL.TXT LICENSE -rw-r--r-- 1 ola ola 14822 2001-02-12 23:42 GNUGPL.TXT -rw-r--r-- 1 ola ola 280 2001-02-12 23:42 LICENSE [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/build/debian/_qa/mmake-2.2.1$ My reference comes from that GNUGPL.TXT in the source. The LICENSE file is a bit short but the GNUGPL.TXT file covers everything just as it should. It just has an uncommon name, that is all. I can not see anything wrong with this. If you read the debian copyright file, you can see that I refer to that file instead of the file LICENSE. Or do you still think I did something wrong here? Regards, // Ola > Thomas -- - Ola Lundqvist --- / [EMAIL PROTECTED] Annebergsslingan 37 \ | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 654 65 KARLSTAD | | +46 (0)54-10 14 30 +46 (0)70-332 1551 | | http://www.opal.dhs.org UIN/icq: 4912500 | \ gpg/f.p.: 7090 A92B 18FE 7994 0C36 4FE4 18A1 B1CF 0FE5 3DD9 / --- - End forwarded message - -- - Ola Lundqvist --- / [EMAIL PROTECTED] Annebergsslingan 37 \ | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 654 65 KARLSTAD | | +46 (0)54-10 14 30 +46 (0)70-332 1551 | | http://www.opal.dhs.org UIN/icq: 4912500 | \ gpg/f.p.: 7090 A92B 18FE 7994 0C36 4FE4 18A1 B1CF 0FE5 3DD9 / ---
Second announcement - Bug Squashing in Darmstadt, 20th - 22nd August 2004
[ sent to all lists from the first announcement; please reply off-list ] Hi, As you may remember from this mailing list, a real-life Bug Squashing Party is taking place next weekend in conjunction with the Bug Squashing Week on IRC. The event will take place at the Department of Numerical Methods in Mechanical Engineering (FNB) at Technical University Darmstadt. Network access will be made available. Overnight accommodation will be provided by local LUG-members. Please bring a sleeping bag. Here are the coordinates in space and time: Fachgebiet für Numerische Berechnungsverfahren im Maschinenbau TU Darmstadt Campus Lichtwiese Hörsaal L1|01-326S Petersenstraße 30 D-64287 Darmstadt August 20, 2004, 14:00 - open end August 21, 2004, 10:00 - open end August 22, 2004, 10:00 - open end You will find a description of how to get there either in the previous announcement[1] or on the FNB website[2]. On Saturday and Sunday the building might be locked. In this case please call +49-6151-16-2384 and someone will let you in. There will also be a Debian Birthday Party BBQ on Saturday evening at about 8pm. If you plan on coming, please bring/buy whatever you like to bbq. There will be ample time and opportunities to go grocery shopping. If you plan to attend the BSP, please let us know as soon as possible: o when you plan to arrive on each day, o if you need a place to sleep during the night, o what hardware you are bringing, o what you would prefer to drink. Looking forward to seeing at least as many of you as in Munich, Martin Zobel-Helas, Michael Fladerer and Christoph Ulrich Scholler. [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-events-eu/2004/07/msg00113.html [2] http://www.fnb.tu-darmstadt.de/en/anfahrt.php -- Martin Zobel-Helas [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.helas.net or http://mhelas.blogspot.com GPGKey-Fingerprint: 14744CACEF5CECFAE29E2CB17929AB90F7AC3AF0 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [opal@debian.org: Re: Accepted mmake 2.2.1-4 (all source)]
Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > My reference comes from that GNUGPL.TXT in the source. > > The LICENSE file is a bit short but the GNUGPL.TXT file covers > everything just as it should. It just has an uncommon name, that > is all. The LICENSE file there is, alas, not sufficient. It isn't in any way associated with the copyrights in the actual source files, and that's what actually matters. I wish it were not so, but thus it is. We cannot tell from that file which things it covers, and that makes it not a valid license. :( And, worse yet, this LICENSE file does not exist upstream in the current version (2.3), which makes me worry. For this reason I have been attempting to contact upstream. > I can not see anything wrong with this. If you read the debian > copyright file, you can see that I refer to that file instead > of the file LICENSE. That's the right thing surely; no objection to doing that. > Or do you still think I did something wrong here? Nothing hugely wrong; and fixing all the other bugs was certainly a very good thing to do. I would have appreciated it if you had read through the discussion on the present bug and, since I mentioned it on debian-qa and in the bug log recently, communicated with me before closing it. But no harm has been done; including the 'LICENSE' file in debian/copyright is surely better than nothing, but it alas, does not solve the problem, so the bug should remain open. If upstream can't say what his actual licensing intentions are, then we will have to remove the package. (Which is, frankly, no huge disaster.) Thomas
attempts to fix
It turns out that fixing this bug is not trivial; it is merely one of a whole host of problems that are caused because apparently swig has changed its interface in a variety of ways. Adapting to the changes seems easy on the assumption that you understand swig, but I don't. Perhaps version 2.0.1 (see bug 173384) solves the problems. Since version 2.1 is not free at all, perhaps the best thing to do is to drop roleplaying from Debian entirely. Thomas
