On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 10:45:03PM +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: > Julian Andres Klode wrote: > > > That's basically a superset of what I wrote on IRC after the initial > > email happened (basically, I wrote something like: asking upstream for > > permission is stupid, it's their trademark, and as long as nobody wants > > to sue you, everything is fine).
While this approach may be suitable in many circumstances, it is not a legal strategy. > > I don't know why OdyX decided to do this, there was no prior discussion > > of this, and I never supported this, and I am sure most of the others > > did not support this either. I support maintainers and developers using common sense to try to find a solution to this problem. I think creating dialog and discussion is an appropriate common sense approach, I don't think OdyX has done anything wrong here. > I decided to send out this mail because I felt that it was the right thing > to do, given the problems enlightened by the Smeegol release, because those > issues appeared to me as worrying for the packaging of the MeeGo software. I > tried to make it clear that I was bringing those issues up on my sole name > and not as a representative of anything (although I reckon that I might have > failed at that). > > Now Steve's mail and yours both put some clearer light on the issue and make > me understand the various implications better: thank go to both of you for > that. > > But now said mail is out. The responsability of its sending and the > implications thereof are on my shoulders. Furthermore, I acknowledge that > 1) I should have discussed its content, aim and wording beforehand, > 2) asking for permission when a permission grant is useless is not the > thing to do. > Now how do I / do we proceed ? > > Does anyone (team or person) need a wider apology than this one ? Is a > coordinated answer from Debian needed to Ibrahim's mail needed/wanted ? I > can prepare it and make sure it gets proofread first (Steve already agreed > to do that, but it could be done more publicly). I'd like to think that no more apologies are required. I think you've acted in good faith in an attempt to handle a fairly complex issue. If we want to reach a consensus I feel we may need to minimize the amount of blame passed out and instead focus instead on constructive, positive steps forward, like actually packaging the software. :-) I for one do not need any apology from OdyX. At the same time I recognize Steve's wise email pointing out that we are dealing with an issue that might undermine the precedent Debian has set; i.e. packaging of software is de facto beyond the realm of trademark. Were Debian to make a calculated retreat from that position it might undermine a significant portion of the software Debian has already packaged and could affect the packaging of software for Free Software distributions in general with unintended consequences. > And for the packaging: it basically stopped because I fell out of time. But > what would happen if a "libmeegotouch" package lands in NEW ? Let's move forward and trust that the existing Debian processes will flag any issues that haven't be considered yet. Regards, Jeremiah _______________________________________________ Pkg-meego-maintainers mailing list Pkgfirstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-meego-maintainers