On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 02:54:57PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote: > Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes: > > > Do you agree that my mail exchange as found in the sympathy package is > > a good example of how to ask these questions, and how to record the > > answers ? > > Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes: > > > I meant this, which I provided a link to earlier: > > https://browse.dgit.debian.org/sympathy.git/tree/COPYING.emails > > Yes, that's a good record of the conversation. > > It'd be better IMO if it included each message's Message-ID field, or > some other URI for each message so that the parties in the conversation > can later verify that it matches their own record of the discussion. > > Are there messages in that file that could be removed? I typically try > to get a single message from the copyright holder, that contains an > explicit and unambiguous grant of a specific license. > > Often that isn't forthcoming as clearly as we might like, because of how > the correspondence unfolds. I appreciate that you pressed for that in > the discussion for ‘sympathy’. Maybe that's just an example of a case > where no one message will clearly show the grant of license, and the > whole set needs to be examined.
Dear Ian and Ben, Thank you for resuming this conversation! I had forgotten to finish work on this issue and it exactly the reminder I needed. I pushed updates here: https://anonscm.debian.org/git/pkg-emacsen/pkg/muse-el.git/tree/debian/COPYING.emails https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-emacsen/pkg/muse-el.git/ How important is this updated copyright? Do I need to worry about getting it into Stretch? When Feb 5th blew by I thought "minor, not very popular package that isn't worse than it was before" so didn't worry about it and I thought the issue wasn't worth hassling someone for an unblock. Sincerely, Nicholas
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature