Re: [PATCH] gnu: Add cool-retro-term.

[Petter]

On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 20:47:54 -0500
Eric Bavier <address@hidden> wrote:

> > > > +    (inputs
> > > > +     `(("qt" ,qt)))      
> > > 
> > > Does this package need all of qt, or could we use the component
> > > packages instead?    
> > 
> > I don't know. I'll do some experiments and see.  
> 
> OK, great.

Fixed!

Now it is:
      (inputs
       `(("qtbase" ,qtbase)
         ("qtdeclarative" ,qtdeclarative)
         ("qtgraphicaleffects" ,qtgraphicaleffects)
         ("qtquickcontrols" ,qtquickcontrols)))

> > > > +    (description
> > > > +     "Cool-retro-term (crt) is a terminal emulator which mimics the
> > > > look and +feel of the old cathode ray tube (CRT) screens.  It has been
> > > > designed to be +eye-candy, customizable, and reasonably lightweight.")
> > > > +    (home-page "https://github.com/Swordfish90/cool-retro-term";)
> > > > +    (license (list license:gpl2 license:gpl3)))))      
> > > 
> > > The license seems unclear: 1) there is both a gpl-2.txt and gpl-3.txt
> > > in $topsrcdir, but no mention of which actually applies in any of the
> > > source files, 2) $topsrcdir/packaging/debian/copyright claims GPL-3,
> > > while 4) $topsrcdir/packaging/rpm/cool-retro-term.spec and
> > > $topsrcdir/packaging/appdata/cool-retro-term.appdata.xml both claim
> > > GPL-3.0+, and 5) the qmltermwidget component appears to be under
> > > gpl2+.  IANAL but this suggests license:gpl2+ to me.  Does that seem
> > > right?    
> > 
> > I can't answer this, hopefully someone else will chime in.  
> 
> I did a little more looking: The sources in app/qml seem to have
> license headers marked as GPLv3+, so we can mark it as such.

I changed the GPL3 license GPL3+.

The owner has replied in an issue about this.

---[Swordfish90 commented on Dec 1, 2015]---
Hi @nadams810 and sorry for the late response. Since the project is split
into two different components, the idea behind the licensing was the
following:

    1. All the files belonging to QMLTermWidget which is a separate library
forked by qtermwidget are licensed under GPL2 (as the original library).
    2. All the files belonging to CRT are licensed under GPL3.
 
To be fair I'm not really an expert when it comes to licensing and if there
is something wrong with the following approach just let me know.
---end-quote---

https://github.com/Swordfish90/cool-retro-term/issues/269

> >   
> > > It would not hurt to also list the SIL license, for
> > > $topsrcdir/app/qml/fonts/modern-hermit, and the X11 license for
> > > fonts/modern-pro-font-win-tweaked and fonts/modern-proggy-tiny.

Added.

> > > The fonts/modern-envy-code-r font probably needs to be stripped; it's
> > > license is non-free; from 'Read Me.txt':
> > > 
> > >   "Free to use but redistribution prohibited."
> > > 

This font was removed Mar 13, 2016.
https://github.com/Swordfish90/cool-retro-term/commit/c505dfaa11166054686df7390cf04dba324ad869

> > > and the fonts/1977-apple2, fonts/1977-commodore-pet, probably also needs
> > > to be stripped as non-free; from 'FreeLicense.txt':
> > > 
> > >   "1. The User may not sell copies of the Software for a fee."
> > > 
> > > The fonts/1979-atari-400-800 font seems to be non-free license, which is
> > > not mentioned in the 'ReadMe.rtf' but only on the WayBack Machine at
> > > https://web-beta.archive.org/web/20080907111008/http://www2.bitstream.net/~marksim/atarimac/fonts.html
> > >  :
> > > 
> > >   "These fonts are freeware and may not be offered for sale seperately
> > >   or as part of a collection."
> > > 
> > > The fonts/1982-commodore64 font is licensed under non-free terms; see
> > > fonts/1982-commodore64/license.txt
> > > 
> > > The only mention of a license for fonts/1985-ibm-pc-vga is at
> > > http://www.dafont.com/font-comment.php?file=perfect_dos_vga_437 where
> > > the author says "The license is this: this font is free to use in
> > > whatever you want.", but that probably "doesn't count".
> > > 
> > > I could not find license info for a few of the other fonts.
> > > 
> > > OTOH I recall a discussion on IRC recently about fonts embedded in
> > > packages being treated as non-functional data, and thus OK from a FSDG
> > > perspective.  But I would want verification on that.    
> > 
> > Let's see if someone can shine some light on this.
> >   
> 
> Leo pointed me at https://bugs.gnu.org/26588 which references
> https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html#non-functional-data
>  .
> I think many of these fonts would need to be stripped out or
> substituted because their license prohibits commercial/non-commercial
> redistribution.

Recipe is now removing the following from disk and GUI:
                                  '("1977-apple2"
                                    "1977-commodore-pet"
                                    "1979-atari-400-800"
                                    "1982-commodore64"
                                    "1985-ibm-pc-vga")

Should more be removed?

What do we do about the fonts without licensing info?

Also, I've added 3 patches from lxde/qtermwidget. The 2 with possible security
implications, and 1 memory leak (of those you listed). With the remaining two
you linked, memory leak and perfomance fix, git was unable to apply to the
current qmltermwidget codebase.

Best,
Petter

0001-gnu-Add-cool-retro-term.patch
Description: Text Data

pgpo9lGNGFVdE.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature