[DRE-maint] ruby-pdf-reader_0.10.0+real-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

[Cédric Boutillier]

On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 01:51:40PM -0700, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> Luca Falavigna escreveu isso aí:
> > Il 14/09/2011 22:48, Cédric Boutillier ha scritto:
> > > The license has two paragraphs, and authorizes distribution in one of
> > > the two following cases:
> > > 
> > > *either: you are not allowed to modify and keep the same license and
> > > copyright assignment (that is the clause you mention)
> > > 
> > > *or: you can modify, edit, alter, but in that case, provided you do not
> > > mention it comes from the initial file.
> > 
> > Let's quote the important bits here:
> > 
> > ========================================================================
> > Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a
> > copy of this documentation file, to create their own derivative works
> > from the content of this document to use, copy, publish, distribute,
> > sublicense, and/or sell the derivative works, and to permit others to do
> > the same, provided that the derived work is not represented as being a
> > copy or version of this document.
> > ========================================================================
> > 
> > The last sentence states you can create your derivative work provided
> > it's a derivative work, and it doesn't have to be a copy of the original
> > work. Beside the fact this is a bad written clause, problem still stands
> > because this file seems a verbatim copy of the original work, thus
> > falling into first paragraph.

> Bad wording, indeed.

> But it can still be modifed if needed, provided that who modifies it
> does the modifications in a way that complies with the license.

> In the same way that if you modify GPL-licensed source your modified
> version must "carry prominent notices stating that you modified it, and
> giving a relevant date", if you modify these sources you have to do this
> and that - but for now, we did not modify it.

> > Is this file really required, or can it be safely removed? If not, I'm
> > not sure how to proceed, perhaps asking upstream to remove license
> > notice would fit the clauses listed in the second paragraph.

> It is required to the operation of the library.

There exists a file with the same name and content, but with a more
permissive license, already packaged for Debian in the package 'aglfn'.
(There is almost nothing else in that package).
I contacted upstream to propose him to use this file instead of the
problematic one.

In the mean time, if the license from Adobe is still a no-go, I would
propose the following workaround: I could repack the source of the
package to remove that problematic file,  add a dependency on that aglfn
and make a 1-line patch to use the good file instead of the bad one in
ruby-pdf-reader.

What do you think?

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-ruby-extras-maintainers/attachments/20110915/98d1d23b/attachment.pgp>