powered by Jive Software

Intent to package Smack for Debian

Good Day!

I’‘m intending to package Smack 1.4.1 for Debian inclusion. I think Smack would be a good addition to Debian because of it’'s ease of use and there is no Java XMPP client library for Debian yet, last time I checked.

I just have a few concerns regarding the last two points in the README.

  • “Smack contains icons and images licensed from INCORS GmbH. You are not licensed to use these icons outside of Smack.”

What and where are those icons and images? Are they distributable? If not, Can I leave them out of the package.

  • “Third-party source code is licensed as noted in their source files.”

What are those third-party source code? A quick grep doesn’'t seem to show anything non-Apache using source code. I would really appreciate if you anyone can point them out.

Thanks for your time.



Putting Smack into Debian sounds like a great idea. We recently ran into very similar questions with the Eclipse foundation:

  1. The images can’‘t be re-distributed under the Apache license and can only be used with Smack. The easiest solution may be to just remove all th PNG files in the release. This will affect the UI of the Smack debugger but won’'t impact it functioniong as a library. Perhaps we can find some freeware icons to use in a future release.

  2. There is a hex encoder/decoder in the StringUtils class that is licensed under the LGPL. A user is looking for an Apache-license replacement for that now. Or, LGPL might work for you now.

Please let me know if you have any further questions.



Hi Matt,

  1. Alright. It shouldn’'t be hard to find “free” icons out there. Good luck with that and I hope to see free icons in future releases

  2. It shouldn’'t be a problem, I hope. I will get back to you on this.

The reason why I brought these concerns is that I want Smack in the main section of Debian and not in the “contrib” or “non-free” sections. In that way, it is more visible to users, and I guess it adds more appeal to licensing-aware developers.



DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer.

I’'ve been reading the LGPL license at http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html, and following are concerns that I want to raise:

  1. If the code is LGPL, copyright belongs to the Free Software Foundation and must include the following notice:

Copyright © 1991, 1999 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA

Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies

of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

  1. I think you should move the LPGL code into it’'s own class along with the appropriate copyright notices. Since StringUtils uses the APL, some people might get confused that the whole class is APL.

I can’‘t stipulate other sections of the LGPL because I don’‘t quite understand it. I’‘m sorry if I drag you into this issue. It’'s just a concern that needs to be addressed.



It’'s very possible these are valid concerns. Probably the easiest solution is to find an APL replacement for the hex encode/decode functions.




Hi! Is it alright to file this as an issue against Smack?