Bug#849835: Include MPL-1.1 and MPL-2.0 in common-licenses

[Russ Allbery]

Santiago Vila  writes:

> Of course. The fact that it's in git means that the change has been
> approved by the policy group, that's the idea, and that's enough.

Thanks!

> I've already made the upload, but I still have a minor comment:

> We have symlinks like GPL -> GPL-3 for some licenses, but not for all
> of them.

> Because the MPL license itself does not seem to encourage the "or any
> later version" wording (as the GPL does), I decided that we can live
> without a symlink for the MPL. But if there is a good reason why we
> should have it, please let me know.

I agree with this decision -- I think we shouldn't have a symlink.  I feel
like the symlink was mostly there for the "or any later version" semantics
(and only arguably useful there), and don't see a need to add it for
licenses that don't use that provision.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   

Bug#849835: Include MPL-1.1 and MPL-2.0 in common-licenses

[Santiago Vila]

On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 10:19:07AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:

> Maybe you can interpret that as a commit to the Policy repository that
> will be included in the next release, as opposed to an actual Policy
> release?

Of course. The fact that it's in git means that the change has been
approved by the policy group, that's the idea, and that's enough.


I've already made the upload, but I still have a minor comment:

We have symlinks like GPL -> GPL-3 for some licenses, but not for all
of them.

Because the MPL license itself does not seem to encourage the
"or any later version" wording (as the GPL does), I decided that we
can live without a symlink for the MPL. But if there is a good reason
why we should have it, please let me know.

Thanks.

Bug#849835: Include MPL-1.1 and MPL-2.0 in common-licenses

[Russ Allbery]

Santiago Vila  writes:

> Sorry, I believed we were out of time for that, but maybe I was wrong.
> Do you think this is ok for stretch?

> If yes, I can include the mpl licenses real soon now (I'd like to fix
> the bug about motd which was reported just a few days ago).

I think it's okay for stretch, although I don't have any strong opinions.
There are a bunch of accumulated changes to Policy and I usually feel
comfortable uploading Policy during a release freeze since it doesn't
really matter what version releases with stable, but I don't think it's
harming anything to wait until after the release (just a somewhat
theoretical violation of release early, release often).

> Ok, this is a deadlock :-) If you read the paragraph in base-files FAQ
> regarding how I delegate this to policy, it says that I'm usually
> reluctant to add licenses until I see policy changed.

*laugh*.

Maybe you can interpret that as a commit to the Policy repository that
will be included in the next release, as opposed to an actual Policy
release?

I'm probably being excessively conservative, but I recall a few folks
feeling like it was a technical violation of the license to have people
upload packages referring to base-files's copy of the license when there
was no base-files containing the license, since if one were extremely
pedantic about it, it would mean we were distributing copies of that code
without an accompanying copy of the license.  That's why I've historically
waited for the base-files release first.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   

Bug#849835: Include MPL-1.1 and MPL-2.0 in common-licenses

[Santiago Vila]

On Sun, Apr 02, 2017 at 08:47:31PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Santiago Vila  writes:
> > On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 03:21:18PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> 
> >> Debian Policy decided, in Bug#768292, to include MPL-1.1 and MPL-2.0 in
> >> common-licenses.  Could you include those two files in common-licenses
> >> in base-files?
> 
> > Ok, will be done in the next upload, whenever that will be.
> 
> Checking in on this, since there was a release on January 15 but I don't
> think it included this change.  (I assume at this point that it won't be
> in the archive until after the release?)

Sorry, I believed we were out of time for that, but maybe I was wrong.
Do you think this is ok for stretch?

If yes, I can include the mpl licenses real soon now (I'd like to fix
the bug about motd which was reported just a few days ago).

> I'm hesitant to upload a new verison of Policy that tells people to omit
> the MPL-1.1 and MPL-2.0 licenses until there's a version of base-files in
> the archive that includes them.

Ok, this is a deadlock :-) If you read the paragraph in base-files FAQ
regarding how I delegate this to policy, it says that I'm usually
reluctant to add licenses until I see policy changed.

For practical purposes I think it's enough that we have already
*decided* that MPL licenses should go to base-files, so please go
ahead and include them in policy. No need to wait.

OTOH, if you really want to see it in base-files first, I plan to
upload base-files real soon (maybe this night, maybe tomorrow).

Thanks a lot.

Bug#849835: Include MPL-1.1 and MPL-2.0 in common-licenses

[Russ Allbery]

Santiago Vila  writes:
> On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 03:21:18PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:

>> Debian Policy decided, in Bug#768292, to include MPL-1.1 and MPL-2.0 in
>> common-licenses.  Could you include those two files in common-licenses
>> in base-files?

> Ok, will be done in the next upload, whenever that will be.

Checking in on this, since there was a release on January 15 but I don't
think it included this change.  (I assume at this point that it won't be
in the archive until after the release?)

I'm hesitant to upload a new verison of Policy that tells people to omit
the MPL-1.1 and MPL-2.0 licenses until there's a version of base-files in
the archive that includes them.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   

Bug#849835: Include MPL-1.1 and MPL-2.0 in common-licenses

[Russ Allbery]

Santiago Vila  writes:
> On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 03:21:18PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:

>> Debian Policy decided, in Bug#768292, to include MPL-1.1 and MPL-2.0
>> in common-licenses.  This change was made and uploaded to the archive
>> in debian-policy release 3.9.7.0.

As noted in a follow-up note, this is thankfully not true.  Someone
commited a bunch of changes to the Debian Policy Git repository adding
changelog entries under the 3.9.7.0 heading, but those changes weren't
included in the upload.  I then got confused.

This change will be in the forthcoming 3.9.9.0.

> Side comment: A binary package does not seem very canonical to me.  Is
> there an official URL for this? (I'm trying to avoid anybody nitpicking
> with formatting, extra spaces and the like, as it happened at least once
> in the past with some GPL license).

Yes, good point.

These appear to be the canonical plain text versions of the licenses from
Mozilla:

https://www.mozilla.org/media/MPL/1.1/index.0c5913925d40.txt
https://www.mozilla.org/media/MPL/2.0/index.815ca599c9df.txt

as linked from here: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   

Bug#849835: Include MPL-1.1 and MPL-2.0 in common-licenses

[Santiago Vila]

On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 03:21:18PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Package: base-files
> Version: 9.7
> Severity: normal
> 
> Debian Policy decided, in Bug#768292, to include MPL-1.1 and MPL-2.0
> in common-licenses.  This change was made and uploaded to the archive
> in debian-policy release 3.9.7.0.
> 
> Could you include those two files in common-licenses in base-files?
> 
> You can find canonical copies of those files in, among other places,
> /usr/share/doc/firefox in the current (5.1.0-1) firefox package in
> unstable.
> 
> (Sent with my Policy Editor hat on.)

Ok, will be done in the next upload, whenever that will be.

Side comment: A binary package does not seem very canonical to me.
Is there an official URL for this? (I'm trying to avoid anybody
nitpicking with formatting, extra spaces and the like, as it happened
at least once in the past with some GPL license).

Thanks a lot.

Bug#849835: Include MPL-1.1 and MPL-2.0 in common-licenses

[Russ Allbery]

Package: base-files
Version: 9.7
Severity: normal

Debian Policy decided, in Bug#768292, to include MPL-1.1 and MPL-2.0
in common-licenses.  This change was made and uploaded to the archive
in debian-policy release 3.9.7.0.

Could you include those two files in common-licenses in base-files?

You can find canonical copies of those files in, among other places,
/usr/share/doc/firefox in the current (5.1.0-1) firefox package in
unstable.

(Sent with my Policy Editor hat on.)

-- System Information:
Debian Release: stretch/sid
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (990, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386

Kernel: Linux 4.8.0-2-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)

Versions of packages base-files depends on:
ii  mawk [awk]  1.3.3-17

base-files recommends no packages.

base-files suggests no packages.

-- no debconf information