Bug#819332: tuxguitar: New 1.3.x versions available upstream

[Jérôme]

Le Sat, 9 Apr 2016 17:53:01 -0700,
tony mancill <tmancill at debian.org> a écrit :

> Hello Jérôme,

Hi.
 
> Thank you for reporting the updated version.  I have taken a quick
> look and the new upstream tarball needs some license clarification
> before it will be distributable as per the DFSG.
> 
> For example, the soundbank beneath ./TuxGuitar-resources/ merely says
> that it was "contributed," but doesn't clarify the distribution
> license. Furthermore, I think we'll run into problems with it not
> being in a "preferred form of modification."

I don't know about the "preferred form of modification". I don't know
how an sf2 file is built and if we could expect some sort of sources
for it.

Anyway, it makes sense to distribute it independently, making it just a
Suggests (and allowing other softwares to use it as well).

FWIW, here is another package with .sf2 files:
https://sources.debian.net/src/fluid-soundfont/3.1-5/

Regarding the licence, without any notice stating otherwise, I'd say
LGPL like the rest, but it doesn't hurt to ask the author. His email
address is in the AUTHORS file. I was about to email him, but you may
want to do it and address the source files issue in the same message.

> Similarly, parts of the TuxGuitar-android tree is GPLv2 instead of
> LGPL, but I believe it can simply be excluded from a DFSG tarball.

Yes, absolutely.
 
> > Any plans to package it?
> 
> I can try, but I welcome help.  I think the first thing to do is
> determine whether we need/want to try to distribute the soundbank
> (via a contrib package) and have the tuxguitar-jsa package suggest
> that. Looking at the popcon graphs [1], the -jsa package isn't nearly
> as popular as either -alsa or -oss, so maybe it's preferable to get
> 1.3.x packaged without it?

If you mean package everything but Magic Sound Font (at least for now)
and the Android stuff, then I totally agree.

Thanks.

-- 
Jérôme