Re: unknown license for package/debian/* in d/copyright in adopted package

[Ben Finney]

Nicholas D Steeves  writes:

> I pushed updates here:
>
> https://anonscm.debian.org/git/pkg-emacsen/pkg/muse-el.git/tree/debian/COPYING.emails

That's a good record. Better than most Debian packages, I'd say :-)

Can you put the Message-ID field for each message in the header for the
message? That will make it easier to refer to specific messages later.

As it is, I can say I think you need only these ones:

* Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 10:15:58 +1000
  From: Trent Buck 

* Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 20:24:01 -0700
  From: Michael Olson 

* Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2017 09:57:49 +0200
  From: Julien Danjou 

> How important is this updated copyright?

It's important to include explicit grant of specific license in writing
from all copyright holders.

> Do I need to worry about getting it into Stretch?

I think it can wait until after the release, though I don't speak for
the release team or FTP masters.

-- 
 \   Eccles: “I just saw the Earth through the clouds!”  Lew: “Did |
  `\  it look round?”  Eccles: “Yes, but I don't think it saw me.” |
_o__)—The Goon Show, _Wings Over Dagenham_ |
Ben Finney

Re: unknown license for package/debian/* in d/copyright in adopted package

[Nicholas D Steeves]

On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 02:54:57PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> Ian Jackson  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  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