Bug#785514: RFS: ming/1:0.4.7-1 [RC]

[Gabriele Giacone]

On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 08:41:02PM -0700, Vincent Cheng wrote:
> Hi Gabriele,

Hi Vince,

> About the re-licensing of php_ext/ming.c and php_ext/php_ming.h, does
> the relevant Github issue [1] mean that the re-licensing wasn't
> actually ACK-ed by all the contributors of these files? This sounds
> like this might be a blocker?

> [1] https://github.com/libming/libming/issues/42

I've just updated the list few hours ago, just 2 missing contributors, 4
commits.  Not sure that commits in question are legally significant and
can block relicensing.  Opinions? [also CC'ing d-legal]

> debian/copyright:
> - various files in e.g. src/blocks/ are also copyrighted by Klaus
> Rechert, not just the specific stanzas you've listed in d/copyright
> - perl_ext/SWF/BinaryData.pm:# Copyright (c) 2009 Albrecht Kleine
> - a small portion of ch/pkgcreate.ch is Copyright 2005
> SoftIntegration, Inc., public domain
> - java_ext/* doesn't seem to be licensed under LGPL-2.1+ as claimed by
> d/copyright, but under this license instead:

Thanks for spending time on d/copyright.
Just fixed what you pointed out in git.

> - debian/ming-fonts-{dejavu,opensymbol}.copyright not converted to
> DEP-5; that's fine, although it's worth pointing out that
> ming-fonts-opensymbol.copyright has an unversioned symlink to the
> LGPL.

Now I know that even binaries can have their own copyright file, which
replaces global one (always good?). Fixed in git.
 
> There's a variety of other things that can be done to
> improve/modernize the package, e.g. DEP-3 patch headers, conversion of
> d/rules to dh shorthand, etc., but I suppose you want to tackle the
> copyright/licensing issues as that's what got the package removed from
> testing in the first place?

Exactly.

-- 
G..e