Re: [be] Fwd: bibledit-gtk_4.2-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

[Jonathan Marsden]

On 06/08/2011 11:27 AM, Teus Benschop wrote:

> I believe that the current version of Bibledit-Gtk, as it is in the
> source repository, is "Debian clean".

Thanks for all your work on this.  Here are a few things I am not sure
about:

> Peter von Kaehne wrote new code that extracts xml data from the Wiki,
> and produces html data. All files are free.

Good.  Do they now have a clear copyright and licence statement
somewhere, so we can point to it from debian/copyright and so "prove"
that they are free?  When people add or edit the wiki content, does the
wiki inform them that their work will be considered to be under some
appropriate free licence or other, etc.?

Also (not really a licencing issue, just a thought), does the script
that builds a release tarball run Peter's script and grab the latest
documentation from the wiki?  If not, how is the source repository kept
at least somewhat in sync with the wiki?  Should it be?

>> bibledit-gtk-4.2/gobible/{GoBibleCore2.jar,GoBibleCreator.jar}
>> sourceless binary stuff with different copyright holder

> The copyright holder may still be different, but I believe that this
> is not a problem, as long as this is mentioned in debian/copyright.
> The GoBible source has been included as an export from the
> subversion repository. It means that the binary stuff is no longer
> 'sourceless'.

The different copyright holder is not a problem as long as it is stated
appropriately in debian/copyright.  Are we now building the .jar files
from those sources at build time?

If everything is going to be really carefully looked at in detail (which
apparently it is!) , I'm not sure just adding some source code will be
"good enough", because then there is no way to verify that the included
.jar really is what you get when you compile the included sources.

If I am right, we might have to further enhance the build system, so it
does the compilation of the .java files, and then creates .jar files
from them.  In that case, the currently-included .jar files can and
probably should then be removed from both the source repository and the
source archive, since they are not "source" material any longer at that
point.

>> bibledit-gtk-4.2/outpost/bwoutpost.exe (and some other files)
>> Missing source, unknown license?

> Not sure why the source is said to be 'missing' here. The source was 
> included in the Pascal files. These are the *.pas files. The source
> is licensed under the GPL. I've updated the README files to further
> clarify this.

OK.  Maybe this has same potential issue as with the .jar files -- we're
not creating the .exe from the sources at build time.  This is actually
less problematic, though, because, if necessary, I can "repack" the
source tarball not to include these files, since they are useless in
Linux anyway and do not end up in the Linux binary packages.

>> bibledit-gtk-4.2/xetex/ptx2pdf.tar.gz not in debian/copyright at all.

> I cannot resolve this, but trust you are able to do so.

I can add information about it to the debian/copyright file, yes.  So as
long as there is good copyright and licence info inside the
ptx2pdf.tar.gz file for me to read and add, this one is easy.

> What else can I do to assist creating a new package for upload to
> Debian? Perhaps release bibledit-gtk version 4.3?

Yes, but not yet.  Once we are sure we have all the copyright/licence
stuff as Debian-clean as we need it, then it would help to create a
release tarball for me to build a new package from.

HOWEVER:

I'm in the middle of a major project at work at the moment, and I need
to get a new bibletime package into Debian soonish (a new "serious" bug
was raised against the older bibletime 2.5 package that is in Debian
now...).  And I'm now one of the two primary Lubuntu developers, and
Lubuntu is in a time crunch trying to become "officially" a recognized
Ubuntu variant (like Xubuntu and Kubuntu)...!  I'll see what I can do,
but I hope to have a little more time for looking through the new
updated sources, and then packaging bibledit, in two or three weeks than
I have at the moment.

Jonathan