Hi,
keeping ITP bug in CC and ping to ftpmaster what option to choose:
Remove data and thus test suite or leave the data with clarification of
copyright?
Kind regards
Andreas.
----- Forwarded message from Andreas Tille <andr...@fam-tille.de> -----
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 08:40:58 +0200
From: Andreas Tille <andr...@fam-tille.de>
To: Jeet Sukumaran <jeetsukuma...@gmail.com>, Thorsten Alteholz
<ftpmas...@ftp-master.debian.org>
Cc: Debian Med Packaging Team <debian-med-packag...@lists.alioth.debian.org>,
Mark Holder <mthol...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Please help clarifying licensed (Was:
python-dendropy_4.0.2-1_amd64.changes REJECTED)
Hi Jeet,
thanks for the clarification.s
Thorsten, would you accept this clasrification regarding the license of
the code as well as the data in d/copyright?
Kind regards
Andreas.
On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 08:45:30AM -0400, Jeet Sukumaran wrote:
> (1) The original DendroPy package was released under the GPL license. Later,
> at the request of some folks who wanted to use the code under a less
> restrictive license, we re-licensed it under BSD. The GPL boilerplate
> remains in some files. But this is an artifact/detritus. I agree this is
> confusing, and should be cleaned up. Will do so, but may not be able to get
> to it before next week.
>
> (2) The test data files have all been (a) sourced from public domain data,
> (b) obtained as part of example data bundled with other applications, and
> typically having been used in published analyses (c) generated using
> analysis programs from public domain data.
>
> In the case of (a), the data is from GenBank, and thus in public domain.
> Where possible, we have maintained citation information for the original
> authors/work that generated the data.
>
> In the case of (b), the original data is also available from the public
> domain. Where possible, we have maintained citation information for the
> original authors/work that generated the data.
>
> In the case of (c), no program we have used places any restriction on their
> output. We maintain the generated text ("File generated by DnaSp ... etc")
> to track provenance.
>
> So, in all cases that I am aware of, the test data is public domain. We do
> not have any verbage to explicitly state this. Will adding such verbage be
> sufficient? I think this is a much simpler solution that splitting the test
> data files.
>
> On 7/11/15 7:50 AM, Andreas Tille wrote:
> >Hi Jeet,
> >
> >since we had quite productive discussion about DendroPy I think we could
> >sort out the things quite quickly. As you can see below the Debian
> >ftpmaster found some files with license statements deriving from the
> >main BSD-3-clause. Before I mention these explicitly (which would be a
> >valid solution for the mentioned concerns) I wonder whether these
> >differences might be simply by accidence and you would rather intend to
> >change the license at your side.
> >
> >Regarding the tests I have another suggestion. When I did the upload
> >that was rejected I introduced a data set I obtained via the following
> >script:
> >
> >
> >#!/bin/sh -e
> >TAR=DendroPy-test-data.tar.xz
> >rm -rf DendroPy ${TAR}
> >git clone https://github.com/pranjalv123/DendroPy.git
> >cd DendroPy
> >tar --owner=root --group=root --mode=a+rX -caf ../${TAR} dendropy/test/data
> >cd ..
> >rm -rf DendroPy
> >
> >
> >This was needed to run the unit tests which is usually a part of the
> >Debian package build process. For the moment I droped this data set and
> >switched of the test. I would like to suggest to provide a workaround
> >for the case that the test data are missing. Some kind of printing
> >
> >===================================================================
> >The unit tests can not be run without the test data tat are missing
> >cuurently. If you want to obtain these data you could use the
> >following code:
> > < script above or something like that >
> >===================================================================
> >
> >IMHO this would be an advantage for all DendroPy users in general.
> >
> >In any case it would make sense to drop some explicit LICENSE file
> >in the testdata directories to clarify the additional concern of
> >Debian ftpmaster in case we might decide to add these data at some
> >later point of time.
> >
> >Kind regards
> >
> > Andreas.
> >
> >On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 10:00:15PM +0000, Thorsten Alteholz wrote:
> >>
> >>Hi Andreas,
> >>
> >>dendropy/test/__main__.py says something about a GPL-3+ license.
> >>applications/sumtrees/sumtrees.py doesn't know what it is, but maybe also
> >>GPL-3+.
> >>dendropy/utility/container.py wants to be partly licensed under Apache-2.
> >>
> >>8MB testdata (with comments like: "File generated by DnaSP Ver. 4.00.3,
> >>from file: COII_Apes.nex")
> >>and with no license information do not belong into the debian-directory ..
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>Debian-med-packaging mailing list
> >>debian-med-packag...@lists.alioth.debian.org
> >>http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-med-packaging
> >>
> >
>
> --
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------
> Jeet Sukumaran
> --------------------------------------
> jeetsukuma...@gmail.com
> --------------------------------------
> Blog/Personal Pages:
> http://jeetworks.org/
> GitHub Repositories:
> http://github.com/jeetsukumaran
> Photographs (as stream):
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/jeetsukumaran/
> Photographs (by galleries):
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/jeetsukumaran/sets/
> --------------------------------------
>
>
--
http://fam-tille.de
----- End forwarded message -----
--
http://fam-tille.de
--
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/20150714125120.gr17...@an3as.eu
