Bug#645487: [Debian-med-packaging] Bug#645487: ensembl: includes GPL code without source
Ansgar Burchardt ans...@debian.org writes: Steffen Möller steffen_moel...@gmx.de writes: Formally speaking there is nothing to argue about. We should remove that .jar. To grant us some more time to orchestrate the individuals behind that package and get up to speed with the much progressed upstream developments, may I ask for an exempt for the Ensembl package, not harming too many in experimental, from [1] for another while, please? Can you give an estimate how long this would take? Temporary removal from the archive might be an option if it takes longer. The package could return once the issue is fixed (just like a new package). Any news about this? Ansgar -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#645487: [Debian-med-packaging] Bug#645487: ensembl: includes GPL code without source
Steffen Möller steffen_moel...@gmx.de writes: Andreas Tille ti...@debian.org writes: You are mixing up GPL and DFSG. GPL says that the source code needs to be provided at least at request (and it in this case it is pretty easy to obtain the source code). The general rule is, if you distribute binaries, you must distribute the complete corresponding source code too.[1] If you make object code available on a network server, you have to provide the Corresponding Source on a network server as well.[2] And having a jalview package in the archive does not help as this does not guarantee we have the source for the exact version of jalview bundled with ensembl. Ansgar [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#UnchangedJustBinary [2] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AnonFTPAndSendSources Formally speaking there is nothing to argue about. We should remove that .jar. To grant us some more time to orchestrate the individuals behind that package and get up to speed with the much progressed upstream developments, may I ask for an exempt for the Ensembl package, not harming too many in experimental, from [1] for another while, please? Can you give an estimate how long this would take? Temporary removal from the archive might be an option if it takes longer. The package could return once the issue is fixed (just like a new package). Ansgar -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#645487: [Debian-med-packaging] Bug#645487: ensembl: includes GPL code without source
Le Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 07:00:23PM -0700, Jonathan Nieder a écrit : This seems to be fixed in the packaging repo. What is left to do before the updated package is uploaded? Would you be terribly offended if I requested removal of the current package in the meantime, so we could continue to set a good example by not asking mirrors to violate the GPL? Hi all, I can upload if needed. Cheers -- Charles Plessy Debian Med packaging team, http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
