[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 23:49:29 +0100 Colin James <colin.james@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I am using an open source It is open source but it has a quite restrictive licence. IMHO, it is the worst kind of "open source" - a bastardised GPL which pretends to be free but is so paranoid about "commercial use" that it ties itself into knots. I know why companies try to do this (they are too scared of the company lawyer) but it only highlights the lack of understanding of open source and free software within the company. Still, it is a positive step that can form the basis of a genuine free software release. I'd just prefer that companies like this would get it right at the start, not follow Sun by waiting years to discover that they should have stuck with the GPL in the first place (or at least something fully GPL compatible). This licence is not compatible with either the GPL or the Debian Free Software Guidelines. http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines (It fails on DFSG 6: bans on specific fields of endeavour: commercial usage.) > ECU on my car but the problem is that the > configuration software is made for XP. I have the source code and it > seems to be mostly Java based so I was wondering how easy this would > be to install on Linux. There is embedded assembly code - I can't be sure if this is binary firmware or MS-specific build data. Firmware is OK in a non-free package if it is only loaded by running the final program and is only for uploading into the peripheral - assembly code used within the build is certain to fail. I don't know Java well enough to be able to tell which is the case here. > Ideally I would like someone to help me make > it into a deb file The licence makes the code non-free and there are unknown problems of just whether the Java classes are windows-specific. Java is still living with the fallout from J+. A .deb can probably be created - the question is whether it will complete the internal tests and work with the intended hardware. > so I can easily install on any of my computers in > the future and I can also request that they host the file and > consequently there will be software support for other Linux users > that wish to use the software. I do not know (or care enough about) Java to take this further because the package clearly was not designed to support GNU/Linux and therefore someone with knowledge of Java needs to review the codebase and check for non-portable code as well as checking just how those .asm files are handled. This is a very limited application (in terms of scope and userbase), it will be hard to find someone with sufficient interest and knowledge to package it. It will also be necessary to ensure that the final package works as expected, so test hardware will be needed. My advice would be to contact the Debian Java Maintainers (DJM): http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=pkg-java-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (especially as the source makes mention of 'ant' which IS a free software java based build tool like make.) http://packages.qa.debian.org/a/ant.html http://packages.debian.org/unstable/devel/ant Make sure that you highlight that this package is non-free (prohibits commercial usage and requires that modified copies are only distributed without fees). Don't expect them to build the package for you (nor to necessarily upload it to Debian non-free) - phrase your request much as you did the original post to the LUG and just ask for a little help. Be patient - it may take some time to get a response. If you can demonstrate some familiarity with the Debian packaging tools and guides, it will make the whole process much easier. http://www.debian.org/devel/ http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/java-policy/ http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/ http://www.debian.org/doc/maint-guide/ e.g. Pick a simple package (not a device driver like this one, a small desktop application or similar) and have a go with the New Maintainer's Guide above. Then approach the DJM. 'Normal procedure' would involve filing an 'RFP' wishlist bug - a Request For Package. However, in this case, the sheer number of existing RFP bugs would tend to drown a small package like this. Not only is it non-free (which cuts down the number of potentially interested people), it is also highly specific. If you do manage to find someone interested, then file the RFP so that the bug report can be tracked elsewhere. HTH. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
pgpBgQzhE7SPx.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html