[I saw this late as I didn't get a reply to the question about whether this was being packaged for Debian.]
> * License : BSD The licence is actually BSD-3-Clause-LBNL in SPDX terms. I think its default licensing clause is a potential trap which Debian might consider. I've asked for an opinion from Fedora legal about including language to nullify that in a "separate written license agreement". The claim on the web site that it is simply BSD3 is wrong, but the issue that included that was closed without resolution. See also below. > Programming Lang: C It's compiled C used by a set of Bourne shell scripts. > Package name (singularity) conflicts with a game package last released in > 2011 with notable popcon of 300... so I guess I would need to come up with an > alternative name, e.g. > > singularity-containers > > Alternative recommendations are welcome! It probably doesn't matter much, but the bundled packaging I contributed used the singular. Debian might want to be circumspect about copyright issues surrounding this. The unresolved issue mentioned above concerned the claim on the project web site that copyright doesn't apply at least to "patches" and I was subsequently told "You cannot “own” copyright in something you contribute to a 3-clause BSD project." (despite the project licence requiring you to grant a licence...). I find it difficult to believe that's what LBNL lawyers actually say, but there you are. <https://github.com/gmkurtzer/singularity/issues/117> This should be added to the post v2.0 upstream copyright file (if you're using that and update from 2.0) since obviously Debian doesn't subscribe to the LBNL copyright theory (see also <https://github.com/loveshack/singularity>): Files: libexec/docker-import.sh Copyright: 2016 Dave Love, University of Liverpool License: BSD-3-Clause-LBNL There are potential security issues in the setuid program, with patches for v2.0 under <https://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/singularity.git>, but it looks as if more are needed.