Bug#750643: antlr: missing licence for PyANTLR

[wolfgang haefelinger]

Hello Debian,

the PyAntlr extension of Antlr consists of two software parts:

(1) A generator source code located in antlr/actions/python ; and a
(2) runt-time library located in lib/python

I herewith declare, that
o part (1) has been released into the wild under the conditions of license
http://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause  ; and further, that
o part (2) has been released into the wild under the conditions of license GPL
version 3 or later (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt)

// Wolfgang Häfelinger




On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 6:07 PM, Thorsten Glaser <tg at mirbsd.de> wrote:

> wolfgang haefelinger dixit:
>
> >Discussed this with the original author of Antlr. The lights are on red
> for
> >a new 2.7 release and I'm currently not willing to create a fork.
>
> Sure. Let’s just add editorial notes from Terence and you to clean up
> the licence situation. We will put that into debian/copyright, and you
> (Terence, probably) can put it up on the website, and that should be
> everything anyone could ever need.
>
> >which is why the “LICENSE.txt” of Antlr itself does not
> >> work for you. (Side fact: it’s misnamed because PD means absence of
> >> the need for a licence.)
>
> >What file name does Debian then propose?
>
> This is not about Debian (they do not ship those files anyway, but
> collect all licencing information in a central file) but about PD
> versus licences. But this does not matter – we’re not re-releasing,
> so we just put the updated info “somewhere”, and everything is good.
>
> Besides, with the proposed language I sent to Terence, there would
> be a licence, so this point is moot anyway.
>
> >>   1) antlr/actions/python/
> >>   2) lib/python/
>
> >My "statement" is then:
> >
> > o All source code packed with (1) is released in terms of the BSD
> software
> >license.
>
> That is one of these?
> * http://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause
> * http://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-2-Clause
>
> > p All source code packed with (2) is released in terms of the GPL
> software
> >license.
>
> This also, unfortunately, has got several options…
> * GPL, any version
> * GPL version 2 only
> * GPL version 2 or later
> * GPL version 3 only
> * GPL version 3 or later
> * GPL version (1 or) 2 or 3 only
>
> >So, can you help me reformulate them so that they look proper and can be
> >used in an "official" statement?
>
> Yes, of course. Just solve the above choices ;-)
>
> >Second, how shall I transmit this statement to Debian? There is a
> >"half-backed" website [1] - maintained by me -  where I could put those
> >license details.
>
> Just per eMail to this bugreport is enough. It would be good
> if you can PGP sign it, but that’s not been required until now.
>
> If you update a website, sure, put it up there. Otherwise, I’d
> suggest (once finished) you also send it to Terence, so it can
> be shown at the official Antlr site.
>
> Thanks for your patience!
>
> bye,
> //mirabilos
> --
> <igli> exceptions: a truly awful implementation of quite a nice idea.
> <igli> just about the worst way you could do something like that, afaic.
> <igli> it's like anti-design.  <mirabilos> that too… may I quote you on
> that?
> <igli> sure, tho i doubt anyone will listen ;)
>



-- 
Wolfgang Häfelinger
häfelinger IT - Applied Software Architecture
http://www.haefelinger.it
+49 1520 32 52 981
(+31 648 27 61 59)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-java-maintainers/attachments/20140812/cbe17f0a/attachment-0001.html>