On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 03:03:28PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 12:28:59PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
It feels like half the problem here is that making it a DEP feels much
more like something that's being pushed to everyone. If it were going
through a similar process
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 04:02:49PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
I think you're missing the point here; my point is that one of the goals of
pushing this through as a DEP comes over as being about greatly increasing the
pressure on people to adopt it.
I don't know what gives you that impression. At
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 04:16:48PM +0100, Noah Slater wrote:
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 04:02:49PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
I think you're missing the point here; my point is that one of the goals of
pushing this through as a DEP comes over as being about greatly increasing
the
pressure on
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 04:36:43PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
Like I say, it's about the impression you're creating. You say these
things but the fact that you're using this formal Debian-wide process
says something different. The whole thing comes over very differently
to here's something you
On Thu, 2009-06-11 at 16:02 +0100, Noah Slater wrote:
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 10:56:25PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org writes:
Unless you are volunteering to write and maintain these files for our
large source packages, for which maintainers have already
On Wed, 2009-06-10 at 23:39 +0100, Noah Slater wrote:
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 11:20:53PM +0200, Arthur de Jong wrote:
What I now would put in debian/copyright is:
Copyright (C) 2006-2008 Person A
Copyright (C) 2007-2008 Person B
It depends what you hope to achieve by adding this
On Thu, 2009-06-11 at 21:11 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 07:56:09PM +0100, Noah Slater wrote:
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 11:48:26AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org writes:
That doesn’t hold. Most of my copyright files are much easier to read
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 10:06:54AM +0200, Frank Lin PIAT wrote:
On Thu, 2009-06-11 at 21:11 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 07:56:09PM +0100, Noah Slater wrote:
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 11:48:26AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org writes:
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 07:03:40PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
And after all, debhelper didn't need a DEP at all in order to come into
widespread use, so your worst case scenario could equally well come to pass
without ever going through a public discussion process - there are already a
fair
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 10:53:11AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
Wouter Verhelst wou...@debian.org writes:
I'm finding it difficult to believe the argument oh, but this isn't
going to be mandatory.
I don't know anyone making the argument that there should *never* be a
mandatory
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 12:28:59PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 07:03:40PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
And after all, debhelper didn't need a DEP at all in order to come into
widespread use, so your worst case scenario could equally well come to pass
without ever
to, 2009-06-11 kello 11:47 -0700, Russ Allbery kirjoitti:
Lars Wirzenius l...@liw.fi writes:
Would Debian benefit from being able to easily query for things like
packages linking to OpenSSL, licensed under GPL, but without an
exception?
Even with the DEP-5 copyright file, you can at
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 08:32:44PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
Moreover, these reasons are all pretty pointless if the format is not made
mandatory, which is supposedly not the goal.
Some of them might be less useful unless fully implemented, some of them
are certainly useful.
Michael
--
To
Lars Wirzenius l...@liw.fi writes:
to, 2009-06-11 kello 11:47 -0700, Russ Allbery kirjoitti:
Even with the DEP-5 copyright file, you can at most generate a
candidate set that you still have to manually check. There are
packages with one GPL component that is not the component that's
linked
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 09:30:31AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 06:10:56PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
If the sole purpose of the format is to have a machine-parseable format,
if it doesn't apply to all packages, then the fact that it is
machine-parseable is useless,
Wouter Verhelst wou...@debian.org writes:
I'm finding it difficult to believe the argument oh, but this isn't
going to be mandatory.
I don't know anyone making the argument that there should *never* be a
mandatory machine-parseable ‘debian/copyright’ format. Rather, I see the
argument that we
Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au writes:
Wouter Verhelst wou...@debian.org writes:
I'm finding it difficult to believe the argument oh, but this isn't
going to be mandatory.
I don't know anyone making the argument that there should *never* be a
mandatory machine-parseable
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 01:39:00AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Certainly not. However, I do think that anything which does not _aim_
for eventual 100% compliance is useless.
I'm finding it difficult to believe the argument oh, but this isn't
going to be mandatory. While I can think of a few
On 2009-06-11, Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote:
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes:
The BSD license says, in part:
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
are met:
1.
On Jun 11, Sune Vuorela nos...@vuorela.dk wrote:
The more I read about this [DEP5], the more I get the feeling that it is
only pushed by people who never maintained large source packages (that
can change rapidly)
And/or like to spend more time arguing technicalities than doing actual
work.
Le mercredi 10 juin 2009 à 23:56 +0100, Noah Slater a écrit :
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 10:44:33PM +, Sune Vuorela wrote:
The more I read about this [DEP5], the more I get the feeling that it is
only pushed by people who never maintained large source packages (that
can change rapidly)
Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org writes:
Unless you are volunteering to write and maintain these files for our
large source packages, for which maintainers have already explained they
don’t want to waste their time with such bikeshedding, this discussion
is 100% useless.
That's a false
Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le mercredi 10 juin 2009 à 23:56 +0100, Noah Slater a écrit :
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 10:44:33PM +, Sune Vuorela wrote:
The more I read about this [DEP5], the more I get the feeling that it is
only pushed by people who never maintained large source packages (that
to, 2009-06-11 kello 15:01 +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi kirjoitti:
I think we need:
- one tool that generate the new copyright files. People forget to check
and update files; and the non-tiny packages need such tools (if we need
the DEP5 format). (the tools as an helper, ev. overwritten
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 11:56:46PM +0100, Noah Slater wrote:
We are developing DEP 5 to codify best practice in a format that is machine
parseable. If best practice means that we don't list copyright statements in a
legally meaningful way, then so be it.
I think previous discussions on this
Lars Wirzenius l...@liw.fi wrote:
Hi,
That's the killer point we should concentrate on. I know commercial
derivatives of Debian can benefit from machine-readable debian/copyright
files: their customers may need to get a list of licenses used in the
(subset) of packages the derivative
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 10:56:25PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org writes:
Unless you are volunteering to write and maintain these files for our
large source packages, for which maintainers have already explained they
don’t want to waste their time with such
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 04:16:42PM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
- and a reason
That's the killer point we should concentrate on.
Let's not forget that a standard format, for editing and for reading, is one of
a number of motivations for this. The existing set of files can be confusing and
Lars Wirzenius wrote:
to, 2009-06-11 kello 15:01 +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi kirjoitti:
- and a reason
That's the killer point we should concentrate on. I know commercial
derivatives of Debian can benefit from machine-readable debian/copyright
files: their customers may need to get a list of
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 04:37:39PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
I think previous discussions on this list have made it clear that legally
meaningful way (as you put it) can be at most optional and is in practise not
applicable for non-trivial or a least medium-size-up upstream project.
Yes, we
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 04:02:35PM +0100, Noah Slater wrote:
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 10:56:25PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org writes:
Unless you are volunteering to write and maintain these files for our
large source packages, for which maintainers have
Le jeudi 11 juin 2009 à 16:08 +0100, Noah Slater a écrit :
Let's not forget that a standard format, for editing and for reading, is one
of
a number of motivations for this. The existing set of files can be confusing
and
hard to read. The copyright proposal is simple, and provides
Le jeudi 11 juin 2009 à 16:16 +0300, Lars Wirzenius a écrit :
- and a reason
That's the killer point we should concentrate on.
[ ... ]
Would Debian benefit from being able to easily query for things like
packages linking to OpenSSL, licensed under GPL, but without an
exception?
Wait… you
On Do, 11 Jun 2009, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Wait… you don’t know of an existing reason and are trying to make up
one?
Thanks for making my point. We don’t need DEP5. The sane process is to
look for solutions to existing problems, not to look for problems
needing an existing solution.
+1
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 06:10:56PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
If the sole purpose of the format is to have a machine-parseable format,
if it doesn't apply to all packages, then the fact that it is
machine-parseable is useless, because you won't be able to machine-parse
all copyright information
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 09:30:31AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 06:10:56PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
If the sole purpose of the format is to have a machine-parseable format,
if it doesn't apply to all packages, then the fact that it is
machine-parseable is useless,
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 06:33:45PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 09:30:31AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 06:10:56PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
If the sole purpose of the format is to have a machine-parseable format,
if it doesn't apply to all
3On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 04:16:42PM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
That's the killer point we should concentrate on. I know commercial
derivatives of Debian can benefit from machine-readable debian/copyright
files: their customers may need to get a list of licenses used in the
(subset) of
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 05:54:42PM +0100, Noah Slater wrote:
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 06:33:45PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 09:30:31AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 06:10:56PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
If the sole purpose of the format is to
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 07:23:52PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
Other reasons that are ... ? cf. 1244737135.14878.211.ca...@shizuru
I guess various people have various reasons.
Personally, I consider having debian/copyright be machine-parseable to
be a good thing in general; after all, all the
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 08:18:13PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 07:23:52PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
Other reasons that are ... ? cf. 1244737135.14878.211.ca...@shizuru
I guess various people have various reasons.
Personally, I consider having debian/copyright be
Sune Vuorela nos...@vuorela.dk writes:
On 2009-06-11, Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote:
Ack, sorry, that's the wrong part. I meant to paste the one
immediately below:
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the
Lars Wirzenius l...@liw.fi writes:
Would Debian benefit from being able to easily query for things like
packages linking to OpenSSL, licensed under GPL, but without an
exception?
Even with the DEP-5 copyright file, you can at most generate a candidate
set that you still have to manually
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 08:32:44PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
Moreover, these reasons are all pretty pointless if the format is not made
mandatory, which is supposedly not the goal.
Please, stop with this line of argument.
Various people already find value in the format primarily because:
*
Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org writes:
Le jeudi 11 juin 2009 à 16:08 +0100, Noah Slater a écrit :
Let's not forget that a standard format, for editing and for reading,
is one of a number of motivations for this. The existing set of files
can be confusing and hard to read. The copyright
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 11:48:26AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org writes:
That doesn’t hold. Most of my copyright files are much easier to read
than DEP5-like ones.
Yes, I agree. My existing pre-DEP5 copyright files are easier for a
human to read than the DEP5
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 07:56:09PM +0100, Noah Slater wrote:
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 11:48:26AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org writes:
That doesn’t hold. Most of my copyright files are much easier to read
than DEP5-like ones.
Yes, I agree. My existing
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 09:11:53PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
OTOH, the most complex copyright file you have is
http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/p/planet-venus/current/copyright
where the format is still applicable.
Sure, it works very nicely for me!
Now compare with
Noah Slater nsla...@tumbolia.org writes:
Is there some particular thing you think I want that makes things hard
for you?
Well, you could restore the feature that was present in earlier versions
of the draft that allowed arbitrary free-form text to be mixed into the
copyright file to explain
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 01:41:26PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Noah Slater nsla...@tumbolia.org writes:
Is there some particular thing you think I want that makes things hard
for you?
Well, you could restore the feature that was present in earlier versions
of the draft that allowed
On 2009-06-11, Noah Slater nsla...@tumbolia.org wrote:
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 09:11:53PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
OTOH, the most complex copyright file you have is
http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/p/planet-venus/current/copyright
where the format is still applicable.
Sure,
Hi Russ,
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 01:41:26PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Noah Slater nsla...@tumbolia.org writes:
Is there some particular thing you think I want that makes things hard
for you?
Well, you could restore the feature that was present in earlier versions
of the draft that
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
Can you provide a more precise pointer to this feature? Given that
the early revisions were done by wiki, I'm finding it non-trivial to
locate a specification for this. I see earlier revisions that seem to
include free-form text in the examples, but
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 06:40:46PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
I think you have to go back most of the way to Sam's original proposal.
Is there any reason a Comment field wouldn't suffice?
Best,
--
Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
Noah Slater nsla...@tumbolia.org writes:
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 06:40:46PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
I think you have to go back most of the way to Sam's original proposal.
Is there any reason a Comment field wouldn't suffice?
I guess it's a matter of taste, but I think there's a
Le Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 01:41:26PM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
Well, you could restore the feature that was present in earlier versions
of the draft that allowed arbitrary free-form text to be mixed into the
copyright file to explain things that aren't part of the bits that have
a fixed
Hi -devel,
I am sorry if it's just me who doesn't understand this sentence, but
please clarify the meaning of ...indicating files that have the same
licence and share copyright holders. in the current DEP-5 proposal
for the 'Files' field.
Imagine I have three files in the source: a, b and
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 11:06:39AM +0200, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
If I understand the sentence in question correctly then the proposal
really requires me to create all three stanzas... that's insane!
Why is it insane? If you combine them, you're loosing information.
Please tell me I am wrong
On Wed, 2009-06-10 at 11:06 +0200, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
I am sorry if it's just me who doesn't understand this sentence, but
please clarify the meaning of ...indicating files that have the same
licence and share copyright holders. in the current DEP-5 proposal
for the 'Files' field.
On Wed, 2009-06-10 at 13:53 +0100, Noah Slater wrote:
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 11:06:39AM +0200, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
If I understand the sentence in question correctly then the proposal
really requires me to create all three stanzas... that's insane!
Why is it insane?
I have a project
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 11:20:53PM +0200, Arthur de Jong wrote:
What I now would put in debian/copyright is:
Copyright (C) 2006-2008 Person A
Copyright (C) 2007-2008 Person B
It depends what you hope to achieve by adding this information.
Ranges of years are not legally recognised for
On 2009-06-10, Peter Miller pmil...@opensource.org.au wrote:
--=-N4erB4l6HGd3iNYSXuXj
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Wed, 2009-06-10 at 13:53 +0100, Noah Slater wrote:
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 11:06:39AM +0200, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
If I
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 10:44:33PM +, Sune Vuorela wrote:
The more I read about this [DEP5], the more I get the feeling that it is
only pushed by people who never maintained large source packages (that
can change rapidly)
Why? We have been over this before.
We are developing DEP 5 to
Noah Slater nsla...@tumbolia.org writes:
It depends what you hope to achieve by adding this information.
Ranges of years are not legally recognised for copyright purposes,
I looked at this a while back and saw no evidence that this was true,
although of course I'm not a lawyer. I know that
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 08:39:04AM +1000, Peter Miller wrote:
On Wed, 2009-06-10 at 13:53 +0100, Noah Slater wrote:
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 11:06:39AM +0200, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
If I understand the sentence in question correctly then the proposal
really requires me to create all three
On Wed, 2009-06-10 at 15:57 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Does Debian only care about listing copyright holders, as opposed to
reproducing legally meaningful copyright statements? If so, why not
just list names here, excluding the word Copyright and excluding
the
years.
Because we have
Robert Collins robe...@robertcollins.net writes:
On Wed, 2009-06-10 at 15:57 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Does Debian only care about listing copyright holders, as opposed to
reproducing legally meaningful copyright statements? If so, why not
just list names here, excluding the word Copyright
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 03:57:46PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Noah Slater nsla...@tumbolia.org writes:
Does Debian only care about listing copyright holders, as opposed to
reproducing legally meaningful copyright statements? If so, why not
just list names here, excluding the word Copyright
Noah Slater nsla...@tumbolia.org writes:
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 03:57:46PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Because we have to comply with licenses that say that we need to
reproduce the copyright notice.
Don't we satisfy that requirement simply by packaging the source
files?
I don't see how.
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes:
The BSD license says, in part:
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
are met:
1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above
Le Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 11:06:39AM +0200, Fabian Greffrath a écrit :
If I understand the sentence in question correctly then the proposal
really requires me to create all three stanzas... that's insane!
Dear Fabian,
everything has been written earlier in this thread, so this is more a
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes:
If the original said Copyright 1994 Foo Bar and we instead said
Copyright 1992-1996 Foo Bar, is that reproducing the copyright
notice? Personally, and not being a lawyer, I'd say the answer is
obviously yes. There is a copyright notice and it contains all
Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au writes:
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes:
If the original said Copyright 1994 Foo Bar and we instead said
Copyright 1992-1996 Foo Bar, is that reproducing the copyright
notice? Personally, and not being a lawyer, I'd say the answer is
obviously yes.
73 matches
Mail list logo
