From: Thomas Preud'h. <ro...@ce...> - 2011-08-25 18:43:34
|
Le lundi 22 août 2011 22:29:19, David P Grove a écrit : > "Thomas Preud'homme" <ro...@ce...> wrote on 08/20/2011 04:11:08 PM > > > 1/ About copyrights > > > > a) The directory docs/images contains several images, some of them > > being under > > CPL license (docs/images/fat-jalapeno-pepper-cropped-*.gif) > > according to their > > meta-information. Since there is no exception for this directory in > > LICENSE.html, are they to be considered all under EPL 1.0? It is my > > understanding that CPL is a bit more restrictive than EPL, hence if the > > file > > > matching the pattern docs/images/fat-jalapeno-pepper-cropped-*.gif are > > really > > > under CPL, I guess the whole archive is to be redistributed under CPL. > > The copyright on those images is owned by IBM. When we re-licensed all of > Jikes RVM from CPL to EPL, I guess we missed some of the meta-data. If you > can tell me how to fix the meta-information to reflect that the images are > licensed under the EPL, I will do it. I did a quick search and I couldn't find a program for handling GIF meta-data so I started to write a small one. So far I can display the license inside, I'll send you the program as soon as I can modify the license. Anyway, with this email quoted in the debian copyright file it should be find. > > > b) Several files in testing/tests seems non-free to me, namely: > > > > - testing/tests/SPECjbb*/*.props > > - testing/tests/perf-jbb*/*.props > > - testing/tests/pseudojbb/* > > - testing/tests/javalex/qb1.lex.ref.classpath > > > > The first three seems to come from SPECjbb and not written by Jikes RVM > > contributors. But from what I understand, SPECjbb is non free so I'mnot > > sure > > > it's fine (including for you) to distribute these files along Jikes RVM. > > > > The fourth and last item is copyrighted: > > > > 1999-2000 Toshihiro Horie > > 1999 Regents of the University of California > > > > On the webpage of Toshihiro Horie [0], we can read: > > "I will make more of the sources available as this project > > > > progresses. All of > > the source and specification files are copyrighted by Toshihiro Horie and > > UC > > > Regents. They may be modified or used only via the written consent of the > > > > author. However, the final project is planned to be released under > > the terms of > > the GNU Public License." > > > [0] http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~horie/qbjc.html: > For Debian, perhaps the thing to do is for you to cut these directories out > of the package. That was indeed my plan. > > > c) I wouldn't bother you about this if it was the only remark but since > > I'm > > > already writing this email… In the directory userguide/, only the root > > index.html contains the EPL header. Do you confirm all of the files > > are covered > > by EPL? (I just need a ack on this) > > Yes. they are under the EPL. They are generated by exporting html from our > wiki. It might be possible to figure out how to include a EPL header in > them as part of the export process, but the lack of a license header in the > file is not intended to be significant. Ok great, 2 reasons to link to this email :) > > > 2/ About dependencies > > > > a) Jikes RVM build system expect exact version match to build. Is this > > exact > > > match in the versions really necessary or would a >= version be ok? If > > yes, > > > I'll push a patch on my machine and will come back to you with a link to > > it. > > > Not sure. May depend on the package. Mainly I was thinking about ecj (version 3.5.1 in Debian), checkstyle (version 5.4 in Debian) and asm (version 3.2 in Debian). > > > b) Jikes RVM currently build depend on Harmony or GNU classpath. Both of > > them > > > are not packaged in Debian and I'd like (if possible) to avoid > > packaging them. > > gcj is packaged though and it seems gcj and GNU classpath sources > > are one now. > > One solution would be to use one of the package gcj-{4.4,4.6}-source > > which > > > seem to contain GNU classpath. But I'd prefer Jikes RVM build to only > > build > > > Jikes RVM. > > > > It is my understanding though that GNU classpath is only used for > > building > > > glibj.zip (renamed as classpath.jar) and from that building rt.jar. I > > noticed > > > that the packages gcj-{4.4,4.6}-jre-lib contain a file rt.jar quite close > > to > > > the content of glibj.zip. Most of the classes are the same, except for 2 > > additional *packages* in rt.jar, one of them being awt. > > > > c) My question is: would it work to use this rt.jar to replace both > > classpath.jar and rt.jar built from GNU classpath? If yes, would > > there be some > > consequences? > > Jikes RVM patches the libraries and also configures their native code as > part of its build process. I would not expect Jikes RVM to work with a > vanilla binary build of either GNU Classpath or Apache Harmony. Sorry. Ok, thanks for the information. As Andii suggested, I'll try to resurrect the gnu classpath which was packaged not so long ago. I hope people won't disagree with that because they seemed quite happy to drop GNU classpath because no packaged depended on it anymore. Thanks for all the answers, Ian, Andii and David. About the well known fork of Jikes RVM I'm not sure if I really want it. It indeed contains interesting element beside support for precompiled Harmony (Harmony is not in Debian neither so no real interest for this on my side), notably full 64 bits support for amd64 but I don't want to maintain a too huge patchset against Jikes. On the other hand I think you mentionned some merge so it might make things simpler. But there is no emergency now, I'll see that when the package will be in Debian. > > --dave Best regards, Thomas Preud'homme |