basilisk-devel

[B2-devel] Basilisk II releases and copyright questions

[Giulio P. <giu...@gm...>]

Hi to all!
	Recently I started collaborating to package Basilisk II for Debian and
now we have a working package. (Package development has been carried out
in a git repository
http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=collab-maint/basilisk2.git;a=summary)

1) During the package development we noticed that much time has passed
since latest official release. Is a new official release planned?
Official releases are not a requirement, but helps keep track of where a
package come from.

2) Every Debian package ships a copyright file
(http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=collab-maint/basilisk2.git;a=blob;f=debian/copyright;h=f2a03b994a88348ebb430e50abc96b31fb4dbe0b;hb=HEAD)
that reports the copyright of all the files in the package.
Unfortunately we noticed that software with incompatible licenses (BSD
(4 clause) and GPL-2+) or with unknown licenses are mixed together. Is
there anything that can be done to fix this?

Bests,
	Giulio.

Re: [B2-devel] Basilisk II releases and copyright questions

[Alexei S. <ale...@gm...>]

Hi,

On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Giulio Paci <giu...@gm...> wrote:
> Hi to all!
>        Recently I started collaborating to package Basilisk II for Debian and
> now we have a working package. (Package development has been carried out
> in a git repository
> http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=collab-maint/basilisk2.git;a=summary)
>
> 1) During the package development we noticed that much time has passed
> since latest official release. Is a new official release planned?
> Official releases are not a requirement, but helps keep track of where a
> package come from.

Unfortunately, the project does not have enough resources to make
official releases. So we have either CVS tip of tree, or unofficial
releases that are build / posted at emaculation.com from arbitrary CVS
revisions.

>
> 2) Every Debian package ships a copyright file
> (http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=collab-maint/basilisk2.git;a=blob;f=debian/copyright;h=f2a03b994a88348ebb430e50abc96b31fb4dbe0b;hb=HEAD)
> that reports the copyright of all the files in the package.
> Unfortunately we noticed that software with incompatible licenses (BSD
> (4 clause) and GPL-2+) or with unknown licenses are mixed together. Is
> there anything that can be done to fix this?

Hopefully, we can resolve this. I'm not sure I completely understand
the output of this tool, so let me know if the following is correct,
in terms of what the tool is reporting:

1. A bunch of the code under slip/ is using BSD 4-clause, which is not
compatible with GPL.
2. A bunch of files don't have licenses - hence the tool prints
"License: UNKNOWN", "FIXME".

Is my understanding of that output correct?

For 1, perhaps we can find a newer version of the slirp code that has
a 3-clause BSD license or something else compatible with the GPL. I'll
have to look. In the mean time, I think there is an option to
./configure Basilisk to not include support for SLIRP networking,
which should result in that code not being used.

For 2, we'll have to track down where those files come from (I think
also from other projects) - most likely they should be GPL licensed.
I'll investigate.

Cheers,

-Alexei

Re: [B2-devel] Basilisk II releases and copyright questions

[Alexei S. <ale...@gm...>]

On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Alexei Svitkine
<ale...@gm...> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Giulio Paci <giu...@gm...> wrote:
>> Hi to all!
>>        Recently I started collaborating to package Basilisk II for Debian and
>> now we have a working package. (Package development has been carried out
>> in a git repository
>> http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=collab-maint/basilisk2.git;a=summary)
>>
>> 1) During the package development we noticed that much time has passed
>> since latest official release. Is a new official release planned?
>> Official releases are not a requirement, but helps keep track of where a
>> package come from.
>
> Unfortunately, the project does not have enough resources to make
> official releases. So we have either CVS tip of tree, or unofficial
> releases that are build / posted at emaculation.com from arbitrary CVS
> revisions.
>
>>
>> 2) Every Debian package ships a copyright file
>> (http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=collab-maint/basilisk2.git;a=blob;f=debian/copyright;h=f2a03b994a88348ebb430e50abc96b31fb4dbe0b;hb=HEAD)
>> that reports the copyright of all the files in the package.
>> Unfortunately we noticed that software with incompatible licenses (BSD
>> (4 clause) and GPL-2+) or with unknown licenses are mixed together. Is
>> there anything that can be done to fix this?
>
> Hopefully, we can resolve this. I'm not sure I completely understand
> the output of this tool, so let me know if the following is correct,
> in terms of what the tool is reporting:
>
> 1. A bunch of the code under slip/ is using BSD 4-clause, which is not
> compatible with GPL.

oops typo, that should read "a bunch of code under *slirp/"

> 2. A bunch of files don't have licenses - hence the tool prints
> "License: UNKNOWN", "FIXME".
>
> Is my understanding of that output correct?
>
> For 1, perhaps we can find a newer version of the slirp code that has
> a 3-clause BSD license or something else compatible with the GPL. I'll
> have to look. In the mean time, I think there is an option to
> ./configure Basilisk to not include support for SLIRP networking,
> which should result in that code not being used.
>
> For 2, we'll have to track down where those files come from (I think
> also from other projects) - most likely they should be GPL licensed.
> I'll investigate.
>
> Cheers,
>
> -Alexei

Re: [B2-devel] Basilisk II releases and copyright questions

[Giulio P. <giu...@gm...>]

Hi Alexei!

Il 29/03/2012 22:18, Alexei Svitkine ha scritto:
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Alexei Svitkine
> <ale...@gm...> wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Giulio Paci <giu...@gm...> wrote:
>>> Hi to all!
>>>        Recently I started collaborating to package Basilisk II for Debian and
>>> now we have a working package. (Package development has been carried out
>>> in a git repository
>>> http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=collab-maint/basilisk2.git;a=summary)
>>>
>>> 1) During the package development we noticed that much time has passed
>>> since latest official release. Is a new official release planned?
>>> Official releases are not a requirement, but helps keep track of where a
>>> package come from.
>>
>> Unfortunately, the project does not have enough resources to make
>> official releases. So we have either CVS tip of tree, or unofficial
>> releases that are build / posted at emaculation.com from arbitrary CVS
>> revisions.

So there is no place where I can find sources released, right? The
current package is built on a snapshot of the CVS tree. Is there any way
to select revision that are more stable?

>>> 2) Every Debian package ships a copyright file
>>> (http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=collab-maint/basilisk2.git;a=blob;f=debian/copyright;h=f2a03b994a88348ebb430e50abc96b31fb4dbe0b;hb=HEAD)
>>> that reports the copyright of all the files in the package.
>>> Unfortunately we noticed that software with incompatible licenses (BSD
>>> (4 clause) and GPL-2+) or with unknown licenses are mixed together. Is
>>> there anything that can be done to fix this?
>>
>> Hopefully, we can resolve this. I'm not sure I completely understand
>> the output of this tool, so let me know if the following is correct,
>> in terms of what the tool is reporting:

You understood exactly the copyright file content.

>> 1. A bunch of the code under slip/ is using BSD 4-clause, which is not
>> compatible with GPL.
> oops typo, that should read "a bunch of code under *slirp/"

Right. After manual inspection I have seen no other BSD 4-clause file. I
also checked the files in slirp/ that have a modified BSD 4-clause
license: they have 3 clauses, but the incompatible one is still there.

>> 2. A bunch of files don't have licenses - hence the tool prints
>> "License: UNKNOWN", "FIXME".
>>
>> Is my understanding of that output correct?
>>
>> For 1, perhaps we can find a newer version of the slirp code that has
>> a 3-clause BSD license or something else compatible with the GPL. I'll
>> have to look. In the mean time, I think there is an option to
>> ./configure Basilisk to not include support for SLIRP networking,
>> which should result in that code not being used.

I would prefer the first solution, but the second one is also valid.
I do not see the option to remove slirp support in the configure script,
do you have any suggestion?

>> For 2, we'll have to track down where those files come from (I think
>> also from other projects) - most likely they should be GPL licensed.
>> I'll investigate.

Thank you very much! I really want to see Basilisk II in Debian... :-)

Cheers,
	Giulio

Re: [B2-devel] Basilisk II releases and copyright questions

[Ronald P. R. <ron...@xs...>]

Op 29 mrt 2012, om 22:17, schreef Alexei Svitkine:

> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Giulio Paci <giu...@gm...> wrote:
> 
>> 1) During the package development we noticed that much time has passed
>> since latest official release. Is a new official release planned?
>> Official releases are not a requirement, but helps keep track of where a
>> package come from.
> 
> Unfortunately, the project does not have enough resources to make
> official releases. So we have either CVS tip of tree, or unofficial
> releases that are build / posted at emaculation.com from arbitrary CVS
> revisions.

As far as I am aware, there have not been any "official" releases of both BasiliskII and SheepShaver since 2006.

In the OSX builds I post at emaculation.com, I manually edit the Info.plist file to add the cvs date to the version number to discern it from previous builds. SheepShaver has version 2.3 since May 2006. My 11 February 2012 build, posted on emaculation.com forum, identifies itself as 2.3 (2012-02-11) in Get Info String and as 2.3.20120211 in Bundle versions string, short.

Despite that, this standstill in version numbering confuses people. A recent build is very different from the 2006 release version. I wonder if it would not be possible to draw a line from time to time, for instance after a meaningful improvement in the source code, and make the source be a next version.

Best Regards,

Ronald.

Re: [B2-devel] Basilisk II releases and copyright questions

[Giulio P. <giu...@gm...>]

Il 29/03/2012 23:13, Ronald P. Regensburg ha scritto:
> 
> Op 29 mrt 2012, om 22:17, schreef Alexei Svitkine:
> 
>> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Giulio Paci <giu...@gm...> wrote:
>>
>>> 1) During the package development we noticed that much time has passed
>>> since latest official release. Is a new official release planned?
>>> Official releases are not a requirement, but helps keep track of where a
>>> package come from.
>>
>> Unfortunately, the project does not have enough resources to make
>> official releases. So we have either CVS tip of tree, or unofficial
>> releases that are build / posted at emaculation.com from arbitrary CVS
>> revisions.
> 
> As far as I am aware, there have not been any "official" releases of both BasiliskII and SheepShaver since 2006.
> 
> In the OSX builds I post at emaculation.com, I manually edit the Info.plist file to add the cvs date to the version number to discern it from previous builds. SheepShaver has version 2.3 since May 2006. My 11 February 2012 build, posted on emaculation.com forum, identifies itself as 2.3 (2012-02-11) in Get Info String and as 2.3.20120211 in Bundle versions string, short.


> Despite that, this standstill in version numbering confuses people. A recent build is very different from the 2006 release version. I wonder if it would not be possible to draw a line from time to time, for instance after a meaningful improvement in the source code, and make the source be a next version.

At least we are using the same strategies for the Debian Basilisk II
package too, so that further confusion is avoided. :-)

Cheers,
	Giulio.

Re: [B2-devel] Basilisk II releases and copyright questions

[Alexei S. <ale...@gm...>]

I've fixed most of the license problems.

The slirp files come from QEMU and have since been re-licensed there
to have the 3-clause license, so I've updated the Basilisk copies in
the same way.

The uae_cpu files come from the UAE project -
http://www.amigaemulator.org/ - which are all GPLv2 licensed, so I've
added license info to them.

Can you re-run the tool and let me know if there are any remaining problems?

Cheers,

-Alexei

On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 5:33 PM, Giulio Paci <giu...@gm...> wrote:
> Il 29/03/2012 23:13, Ronald P. Regensburg ha scritto:
>>
>> Op 29 mrt 2012, om 22:17, schreef Alexei Svitkine:
>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Giulio Paci <giu...@gm...> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 1) During the package development we noticed that much time has passed
>>>> since latest official release. Is a new official release planned?
>>>> Official releases are not a requirement, but helps keep track of where a
>>>> package come from.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, the project does not have enough resources to make
>>> official releases. So we have either CVS tip of tree, or unofficial
>>> releases that are build / posted at emaculation.com from arbitrary CVS
>>> revisions.
>>
>> As far as I am aware, there have not been any "official" releases of both BasiliskII and SheepShaver since 2006.
>>
>> In the OSX builds I post at emaculation.com, I manually edit the Info.plist file to add the cvs date to the version number to discern it from previous builds. SheepShaver has version 2.3 since May 2006. My 11 February 2012 build, posted on emaculation.com forum, identifies itself as 2.3 (2012-02-11) in Get Info String and as 2.3.20120211 in Bundle versions string, short.
>
>
>> Despite that, this standstill in version numbering confuses people. A recent build is very different from the 2006 release version. I wonder if it would not be possible to draw a line from time to time, for instance after a meaningful improvement in the source code, and make the source be a next version.
>
> At least we are using the same strategies for the Debian Basilisk II
> package too, so that further confusion is avoided. :-)
>
> Cheers,
>        Giulio.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF email is sponsosred by:
> Try Windows Azure free for 90 days Click Here
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/sfd2d-msazure
> _______________________________________________
> basilisk-devel mailing list
> bas...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/basilisk-devel

Re: [B2-devel] Basilisk II releases and copyright questions

[Giulio P. <giu...@gm...>]

On 30/03/2012 03:48, Alexei Svitkine wrote:
> I've fixed most of the license problems.
> 
> The slirp files come from QEMU and have since been re-licensed there
> to have the 3-clause license, so I've updated the Basilisk copies in
> the same way.
> 
> The uae_cpu files come from the UAE project -
> http://www.amigaemulator.org/ - which are all GPLv2 licensed, so I've
> added license info to them.
> 
> Can you re-run the tool and let me know if there are any remaining problems?

Thank you very much for your very quick fixes! :-)
I will let you know as soon as I have time to do that, but I do not
expect any other "copyright" issues.

BTW: the copyright file is a manually revised version of the
automatically generated copyright_hints file
(http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=collab-maint/basilisk2.git;a=blob_plain;f=debian/copyright_hints;hb=HEAD)
and I do not see other issues there.

Cheers,
	Giulio.


> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 5:33 PM, Giulio Paci <giu...@gm...> wrote:
>> Il 29/03/2012 23:13, Ronald P. Regensburg ha scritto:
>>>
>>> Op 29 mrt 2012, om 22:17, schreef Alexei Svitkine:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Giulio Paci <giu...@gm...> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 1) During the package development we noticed that much time has passed
>>>>> since latest official release. Is a new official release planned?
>>>>> Official releases are not a requirement, but helps keep track of where a
>>>>> package come from.
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, the project does not have enough resources to make
>>>> official releases. So we have either CVS tip of tree, or unofficial
>>>> releases that are build / posted at emaculation.com from arbitrary CVS
>>>> revisions.
>>>
>>> As far as I am aware, there have not been any "official" releases of both BasiliskII and SheepShaver since 2006.
>>>
>>> In the OSX builds I post at emaculation.com, I manually edit the Info.plist file to add the cvs date to the version number to discern it from previous builds. SheepShaver has version 2.3 since May 2006. My 11 February 2012 build, posted on emaculation.com forum, identifies itself as 2.3 (2012-02-11) in Get Info String and as 2.3.20120211 in Bundle versions string, short.
>>
>>
>>> Despite that, this standstill in version numbering confuses people. A recent build is very different from the 2006 release version. I wonder if it would not be possible to draw a line from time to time, for instance after a meaningful improvement in the source code, and make the source be a next version.
>>
>> At least we are using the same strategies for the Debian Basilisk II
>> package too, so that further confusion is avoided. :-)
>>
>> Cheers,
>>        Giulio.
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> This SF email is sponsosred by:
>> Try Windows Azure free for 90 days Click Here
>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/sfd2d-msazure
>> _______________________________________________
>> basilisk-devel mailing list
>> bas...@li...
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/basilisk-devel
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF email is sponsosred by:
> Try Windows Azure free for 90 days Click Here 
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/sfd2d-msazure
> _______________________________________________
> basilisk-devel mailing list
> bas...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/basilisk-devel

Re: [B2-devel] Basilisk II releases and copyright questions

[Giulio P. <giu...@gm...>]

Il 30/03/2012 11:03, Giulio Paci ha scritto:
> On 30/03/2012 03:48, Alexei Svitkine wrote:
>> I've fixed most of the license problems.
>>
>> The slirp files come from QEMU and have since been re-licensed there
>> to have the 3-clause license, so I've updated the Basilisk copies in
>> the same way.
>>
>> The uae_cpu files come from the UAE project -
>> http://www.amigaemulator.org/ - which are all GPLv2 licensed, so I've
>> added license info to them.
>>
>> Can you re-run the tool and let me know if there are any remaining problems?
> 
> Thank you very much for your very quick fixes! :-)
> I will let you know as soon as I have time to do that, but I do not
> expect any other "copyright" issues.

I found some time to update the packaging files and re-check copyright
of the files. The only remaining "problematic" file is the slirp
upstream src/slirp/COPYRIGHT files which reports a three clause BSD
license, but the wrong ones (i.e., the GPL incompatible clause is still
there).
>From this email
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2009-01/msg01765.html,
whose content you referenced in the changelog, the new license is clear,
so, although confusing, I see no blocking issue there.

Thank you again.
Cheers,
	Giulio.

Re: [B2-devel] Basilisk II releases and copyright questions

[Alexei S. <ale...@gm...>]

Thanks. I missed the COPYRIGHT file changes - looking at the qemu
slirp upstream commit that I referenced, they did update that file
too. So I've made that same change in our tree as well.

-Alexei

On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 6:09 AM, Giulio Paci <giu...@gm...> wrote:
> Il 30/03/2012 11:03, Giulio Paci ha scritto:
>> On 30/03/2012 03:48, Alexei Svitkine wrote:
>>> I've fixed most of the license problems.
>>>
>>> The slirp files come from QEMU and have since been re-licensed there
>>> to have the 3-clause license, so I've updated the Basilisk copies in
>>> the same way.
>>>
>>> The uae_cpu files come from the UAE project -
>>> http://www.amigaemulator.org/ - which are all GPLv2 licensed, so I've
>>> added license info to them.
>>>
>>> Can you re-run the tool and let me know if there are any remaining problems?
>>
>> Thank you very much for your very quick fixes! :-)
>> I will let you know as soon as I have time to do that, but I do not
>> expect any other "copyright" issues.
>
> I found some time to update the packaging files and re-check copyright
> of the files. The only remaining "problematic" file is the slirp
> upstream src/slirp/COPYRIGHT files which reports a three clause BSD
> license, but the wrong ones (i.e., the GPL incompatible clause is still
> there).
> >From this email
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2009-01/msg01765.html,
> whose content you referenced in the changelog, the new license is clear,
> so, although confusing, I see no blocking issue there.
>
> Thank you again.
> Cheers,
>        Giulio.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF email is sponsosred by:
> Try Windows Azure free for 90 days Click Here
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/sfd2d-msazure
> _______________________________________________
> basilisk-devel mailing list
> bas...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/basilisk-devel