Discussion:
Physics license mixes GPLv3+ and zlib?
(too old to reply)
James Cameron
2017-06-13 22:55:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
G'day Sebastian,

Is this license combination compatible? GPLv3+ of Physics [1] with an
embedded binary of pybox2d [2] under a zlib license.

Also;

- Physics has both COPYING and LICENSE with whitespace changes only,
which are GPLv3+; which should it be?

- Physics/lib has LICENSE which is zlib,

- Physics git, .tar.bz2 and .xo include lib/ binaries of pybox2d,

- no documentation for building, except in a commit [3],

I've also a local dfsg branch which changes imports and removes lib/
to have dist_source write Physics-32.1~dfsg.tar.bz2 which can be
imported by git-buildpackage. If there is any other interest, I can
push this branch and tag v32.1~dfsg, though the toolkit does not like
text in version numbers. Might this be fixed?

References:

1. https://github.com/sugarlabs/physics
2. https://github.com/pybox2d/pybox2d
3. https://github.com/sugarlabs/physics/commit/bf4640fd7bd5f29be6afec288ae326b3f5398a97
--
James Cameron
http://quozl.netrek.org/
Sebastian Silva
2017-06-14 00:22:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Cameron
G'day Sebastian,
Good evening James,
Post by James Cameron
Is this license combination compatible? GPLv3+ of Physics [1] with an
embedded binary of pybox2d [2] under a zlib license.
I've no idea why you would ask me this, I am neither a licensing expert
nor, yet, a contributor to Physics.
I'm guessing because I am interested in Debian packaging? Indeed Physics
in Debian would be nice!

According to https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ZLib :
"License of ZLib (#ZLib): This is a free software license, and
compatible with the GPL."
Post by James Cameron
Also;
- Physics has both COPYING and LICENSE with whitespace changes only,
which are GPLv3+; which should it be?
If the contents is the same, either one?
Post by James Cameron
- Physics/lib has LICENSE which is zlib,
- Physics git, .tar.bz2 and .xo include lib/ binaries of pybox2d,
- no documentation for building, except in a commit [3],
I've also a local dfsg branch which changes imports and removes lib/
to have dist_source write Physics-32.1~dfsg.tar.bz2 which can be
imported by git-buildpackage. If there is any other interest, I can
push this branch and tag v32.1~dfsg, though the toolkit does not like
text in version numbers. Might this be fixed?
I don't understand what you mean with your last question.

For sure there's interest in having a
Debian-Free-Software-Guidelines-complying source to hopefully have
Debian distribute this activity. If you could push this branch then it
would be a good first step, then we could work together with pkg-sugar
Team to upload it. Physics should be among the desired activities for
Sugar Blend Huayruro <https://wiki.debian.org/SugarBlend/Huayruro>
project, not sure why it's not listed.
Post by James Cameron
1. https://github.com/sugarlabs/physics
2. https://github.com/pybox2d/pybox2d
3. https://github.com/sugarlabs/physics/commit/bf4640fd7bd5f29be6afec288ae326b3f5398a97
James Cameron
2017-06-14 03:31:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Cameron
G'day Sebastian,
Good evening James,
Is this license combination compatible? GPLv3+ of Physics with
an embedded binary of pybox2d under a zlib license.
I've no idea why you would ask me this, I am neither a licensing
expert nor, yet, a contributor to Physics.
Because you are a contributor, your recent post in another thread
reminded me you have some licensing expertise, there are very few
active contributors, Physics-32 was released a few days ago, and I
already know what Walter thinks. ;-)
Post by James Cameron
I'm guessing because I am interested in Debian packaging? Indeed
Physics in Debian would be nice!
Yes. Debian has Physics-7 at the moment, but Physics-32 is latest
upstream version. My local package of Physics-32 is working fine on
Debian Stretch. See also Debian Bug #855676.
Post by James Cameron
According to [1]https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ZLib
: "License of ZLib (#ZLib): This is a free software license, and
compatible with the GPL."
Thanks.
Post by James Cameron
Also;
- Physics has both COPYING and LICENSE with whitespace changes
only, which are GPLv3+; which should it be?
If the contents is the same, either one?
Agreed. Pushed.
[master 607de73] Remove duplicate LICENSE, please use COPYING
Post by James Cameron
- Physics/lib has LICENSE which is zlib,
- Physics git, .tar.bz2 and .xo include lib/ binaries of
pybox2d,
- no documentation for building, except in a commit [3],
I've also a local dfsg branch which changes imports and removes
lib/ to have dist_source write Physics-32.1~dfsg.tar.bz2 which
can be imported by git-buildpackage. If there is any other
interest, I can push this branch and tag v32.1~dfsg, though the
toolkit does not like text in version numbers. Might this be
fixed?
I don't understand what you mean with your last question.
A side-issue. The dist_source target for setup.py does not work with
a version suffix like ~dfsg, requiring a manual step to rename the
file; but it probably could be fixed so that it will work, but without
impacting the other code that assumes activity version numbers to be
decimal only.

(src/sugar3/bundle/bundlebuilder.py, Config gets version from
ActivityBundle, bundleversion.py accepts 1.2-peru, but not 1.2~dfsg.)

Something like;
https://gist.github.com/891386ccb02298c7e585dceda4311ff8 (untested)
Post by James Cameron
For sure there's interest in having a
Debian-Free-Software-Guidelines-complying source to hopefully have
Debian distribute this activity. If you could push this branch then
it would be a good first step,
Pushed.
https://github.com/sugarlabs/physics/tree/dfsg
Post by James Cameron
then we could work together with pkg-sugar Team to upload
it. Physics should be among the desired activities for Sugar Blend
Huayruro project, not sure why it's not listed.
Thanks.
--
James Cameron
http://quozl.netrek.org/
Loading...