Package: debian-policy
Followup-For: Bug #649530
Hi all, I just noticed that SPDX have released a new version of their spec
that agrees with what I was trying to propose originally here:
See [1] "Deprecated License" and [2] Appendix IV: SPDX License Expressions:
| Simple License Expressions
|
Apologies for the late reply; somehow this email ended up in my spam folder.
On 25/12/12 18:28, Russ Allbery wrote:
Ximin Luo infini...@gmx.com writes:
This feels very much like delay tactics, and makes me feel very
frustrated as someone who is trying to contribute to Debian.
You should
Ximin Luo infini...@gmx.com writes:
On 25/12/12 18:28, Russ Allbery wrote:
You should consider the possibility that no one is trying to delay
anything, but rather that we simply aren't convinced by the changes
that you're proposing.
Well, more criticism would be appreciated rather than
Russ Allbery wrote:
It might be worthwhile to recognize some sort of syntax similar to license
exceptions so that one can tag the license as BSD-3-Clause by copyright
holder or the like. That would let one use standalone license
paragraphs for those licenses without the ambiguity problem,
Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com writes:
Russ Allbery wrote:
It might be worthwhile to recognize some sort of syntax similar to
license exceptions so that one can tag the license as BSD-3-Clause by
copyright holder or the like. That would let one use standalone
license paragraphs for
Ximin Luo wrote:
Why is it essential for the verbatim text to be in debian/copyright,
when the source package should already contain this? We could
alternatively add a Location: field to point to the verbatim license
in /usr/share/doc or the base directory of the source package,
rather than
Russ Allbery wrote:
Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com writes:
Russ Allbery wrote:
It might be worthwhile to recognize some sort of syntax similar to
license exceptions so that one can tag the license as BSD-3-Clause by
copyright holder or the like.
[...]
The next sentence IN NO EVENT SHALL
Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com writes:
Russ Allbery wrote:
Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com writes:
Russ Allbery wrote:
It might be worthwhile to recognize some sort of syntax similar to
license exceptions so that one can tag the license as BSD-3-Clause by
copyright holder or the
On 26/12/12 23:39, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Charles Plessy wrote:
If experimentations are blocked because the current specification does not
allow unspecified types of paragraphs, how about considering to relax it ?
I honestly think that License-Exception stanzas already are a
fundamental
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 08:00:33AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Unfortunately that would involve violating the spec. The current
specification requires that every paragraph be a header paragraph, a
Files paragraph, or a License paragraph. License-Exception paragraphs
are not allowed.
Charles Plessy wrote:
Sorry for the confusion between new field and new paragraph. Still, I think
that we are spending a lot of time discussing refinements that need to
demonstrate their usefulness by being adopted independantly by a broad number
of package maintainers.
Stepping back a
Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com writes:
Charles Plessy wrote:
Sorry for the confusion between new field and new paragraph. Still, I
think that we are spending a lot of time discussing refinements that
need to demonstrate their usefulness by being adopted independantly by
a broad number
Le Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 01:36:32PM -0800, Jonathan Nieder a écrit :
For example, I think the idea of a License-exception stanza is
uncontroversial and valuable.
Hi Jonathan and Ximin,
given that the current specification does not forbid unpecified fields,
I would recommend to test the
Hi Charles,
Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 01:36:32PM -0800, Jonathan Nieder a écrit :
For example, I think the idea of a License-exception stanza is
uncontroversial and valuable.
given that the current specification does not forbid unpecified fields,
I would recommend to
Le Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 11:03:20AM -0800, Jonathan Nieder a écrit :
Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 01:36:32PM -0800, Jonathan Nieder a écrit :
For example, I think the idea of a License-exception stanza is
uncontroversial and valuable.
given that the current
Charles Plessy wrote:
If experimentations are blocked because the current specification does not
allow unspecified types of paragraphs, how about considering to relax it ?
I honestly think that License-Exception stanzas already are a
fundamental enough change that they would have to be
On 24/12/12 10:31, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 11:53:21PM +, Ximin Luo a écrit :
https://github.com/infinity0/debian-policy/compare/bug649350-infinity0
I've split up my previous patch into more manageable chunks, and added
extra explanations in the commit messages.
I'm
On 25/12/12 12:34, Ximin Luo wrote:
On 24/12/12 10:31, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 11:53:21PM +, Ximin Luo a écrit :
https://github.com/infinity0/debian-policy/compare/bug649350-infinity0
I've split up my previous patch into more manageable chunks, and added
extra
On 25/12/12 12:34, Ximin Luo wrote:
On 24/12/12 10:31, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 11:53:21PM +, Ximin Luo a écrit :
https://github.com/infinity0/debian-policy/compare/bug649350-infinity0
I've split up my previous patch into more manageable chunks, and added
extra
Ximin Luo infini...@gmx.com writes:
This feels very much like delay tactics, and makes me feel very
frustrated as someone who is trying to contribute to Debian.
You should consider the possibility that no one is trying to delay
anything, but rather that we simply aren't convinced by the
Hi,
Ximin Luo wrote:
On 24/12/12 10:31, Charles Plessy wrote:
In particular, I do not see the benefit from using a syntax for the license
short names,
[...]
If you would like to work on a
robust syntax, I propose you do it as an independant
Ximin Luo wrote:
I've split up my previous patch into more manageable chunks, and added
extra explanations in the commit messages.
Thanks. I'm used to getting patch series in the mail, but I can
adapt.
| d6892294 - strip trailing whitespace
Ack.
| 4b752126 - change tri-license example to
On 25/12/12 21:36, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Ximin Luo wrote:
I've split up my previous patch into more manageable chunks, and added
extra explanations in the commit messages.
Thanks. I'm used to getting patch series in the mail, but I can
adapt.
| d6892294 - strip trailing whitespace
Le Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 11:53:21PM +, Ximin Luo a écrit :
https://github.com/infinity0/debian-policy/compare/bug649350-infinity0
I've split up my previous patch into more manageable chunks, and added
extra explanations in the commit messages.
I'm trying to follow the principle that the
https://github.com/infinity0/debian-policy/compare/bug649350-infinity0
I've split up my previous patch into more manageable chunks, and added
extra explanations in the commit messages.
I'm trying to follow the principle that the commit messages should
already contain enough justification for the
Correction:
https://github.com/infinity0/debian-policy/compare/bug649530-infinity0
On 18/12/12 23:53, Ximin Luo wrote:
[deleted incorrect url]
I've split up my previous patch into more manageable chunks, and added
extra explanations in the commit messages.
I'm trying to follow the
On 14/12/12 03:37, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Hi Ximin,
Ximin Luo wrote:
I had been using the SVN for DEP as a baseline for patches, but now I guess
the
source code for this is somewhere else - could one of you please point me to
it?
Sure. It's at
Hi all, now that copyright-format 1.0 has been formally released as Debian
policy, I would like to restart the discussion about getting this issue fixed.
I had been using the SVN for DEP as a baseline for patches, but now I guess the
source code for this is somewhere else - could one of you
Hi Ximin,
Ximin Luo wrote:
I had been using the SVN for DEP as a baseline for patches, but now I guess
the
source code for this is somewhere else - could one of you please point me to
it?
Sure. It's at git://git.debian.org/git/dbnpolicy/policy.git.
Also, shall I continue on this bug
Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Wed, Feb 08, 2012 at 06:15:55PM -0600, Jonathan Nieder a écrit :
para
Remaining lines: if left blank here, the file
-emphasismust/emphasis include one or morelink
+emphasismust/emphasis include a link
Le Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 03:23:42AM -0600, Jonathan Nieder a écrit :
Now based on your response, I suspect you misread each to mean
all. Can you suggest an alternate wording? For example, maybe
something in this spirit would work:
If there are no remaining lines, then all of the
Updated patch to apply against recent changes made by plessy - attached version
applies against r274 in SVN (Sat 11 Feb 2012 12:44:26 GMT).
Is there somewhere else you guys are discussing this? Some other mailing list,
or an IRC channel?
Thanks,
Ximin
On 03/02/12 10:53, Ximin Luo wrote:
On
Le Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 04:41:28PM +, Ximin Luo a écrit :
Is there somewhere else you guys are discussing this? Some other mailing list,
or an IRC channel?
Dear Ximin,
in practice, discussions take place where they started, that is usually
debian-project@, debian-devel@, debian-policy@
Le Wed, Feb 08, 2012 at 06:15:55PM -0600, Jonathan Nieder a écrit :
para
Remaining lines: if left blank here, the file
-emphasismust/emphasis include one or morelink
+emphasismust/emphasis include a link
Le Sat, Feb 04, 2012 at 11:26:33AM +0900, Charles Plessy a écrit :
Le Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 01:16:08PM -0600, Jonathan Nieder a écrit :
I believe this should be a blocker --- it is an instance of the
document and actual practice clearly contradicting one another. I
wouldn't mind if it is
Charles Plessy wrote:
would the following changes solve the problem with license exceptions ?
Here's some tweaks for application on top. With these tweaks, I'm
happy with it.
copyright-format/copyright-format.xml | 14 --
1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff
On 03/02/12 01:39, Charles Plessy wrote:
Dear Ximin,
the patch you proposed moves a lot of text without changing it, which makes it
difficult to review. Moreover, I think that there is a long-standing
consensus
to not change the normative parts of this format unless unavoidable.
I have
Le Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 10:53:45AM +, Ximin Luo a écrit :
It is not perfecting the document, it's addressing the core problem of this
bug. It's really not that significant a change.
Hello again,
I read again the whole bug discussion. For most of the propositions, all the
participants,
Hi Charles,
Charles Plessy wrote:
For other points, for instance that stand-alone license sections can also
accept short names accompanied by their license exception, a clarification
would not hurt; but I do not consider this a blocking problem.
I believe this should be a blocker --- it is
Le Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 01:16:08PM -0600, Jonathan Nieder a écrit :
Charles Plessy wrote:
For other points, for instance that stand-alone license sections can also
accept short names accompanied by their license exception, a clarification
would not hurt; but I do not consider this a
On 13/01/12 01:14, Ximin Luo wrote:
On 10/01/12 00:41, Ximin Luo wrote:
On 08/01/12 05:30, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 03:22:04PM -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Ximin Luo wrote:
OK, understood. I will take a look at creating a patch for
copyright-format.xml
like you did.
Dear Ximin,
the patch you proposed moves a lot of text without changing it, which makes it
difficult to review. Moreover, I think that there is a long-standing consensus
to not change the normative parts of this format unless unavoidable.
I have refrained from commenting until you pinged the
On 10/01/12 00:41, Ximin Luo wrote:
On 08/01/12 05:30, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 03:22:04PM -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Ximin Luo wrote:
OK, understood. I will take a look at creating a patch for
copyright-format.xml
like you did. However, I think I would prefer using
On 08/01/12 05:30, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 03:22:04PM -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Ximin Luo wrote:
OK, understood. I will take a look at creating a patch for
copyright-format.xml
like you did. However, I think I would prefer using an explicit grammar
instead
On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 03:22:04PM -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Ximin Luo wrote:
OK, understood. I will take a look at creating a patch for
copyright-format.xml
like you did. However, I think I would prefer using an explicit grammar
instead
(e.g. the sort that programming language
Le Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 08:44:16PM +, Ximin Luo a écrit :
I think your example above is not the best way to represent license
exceptions.
Roughly, the specification of a license can be described by this sort of
grammar:
CompositeLicense
:: AND ( CompositeLicense1 CompositeLicense2
On 21/12/11 12:05, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 08:44:16PM +, Ximin Luo a écrit :
I think your example above is not the best way to represent license
exceptions.
Roughly, the specification of a license can be described by this sort of
grammar:
CompositeLicense
::
On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 12:24:03AM -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
I disagree strongly. The cost of giving maintainers *different* ways to
represent the license status is much higher than the cost of requiring
maintainers to separately reproduce license headers for components that are
GPL-2
Steve Langasek wrote:
I think this is perfectly valid:
Files: *
Copyright: The Man in the Moon, 2007
License: GPL-2+ with OpenSSL exception
License: GPL-2+ with OpenSSL exception
This program is free software [...] as a special exception, [...]
On Debian systems, [...]
Perhaps the
On 18/12/11 17:52, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 12:24:03AM -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
I disagree strongly. The cost of giving maintainers *different* ways to
represent the license status is much higher than the cost of requiring
maintainers to separately reproduce license
Ximin Luo wrote:
the current DEP5 supports this and has it as an explicit example.
Relevant wording:
Section Paragraphs, subsection Stand-alone License Paragraph says:
Where a set of files are dual (tri, etc) licensed, or when the
same license occurs multiple times, you can
Ximin Luo wrote:
OK, understood. I will take a look at creating a patch for
copyright-format.xml
like you did. However, I think I would prefer using an explicit grammar
instead
(e.g. the sort that programming language specifications use), because that
leads to clearer thinking and less
On 18/12/11 20:56, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Ximin Luo wrote:
the current DEP5 supports this and has it as an explicit example.
Relevant wording:
Section Paragraphs, subsection Stand-alone License Paragraph says:
Where a set of files are dual (tri, etc) licensed, or when the
Sorry for the late reply, I had forgotten about this.
On 22/11/11 14:29, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 11:08:44PM +, Ximin Luo a écrit :
The fundamental problem:
DEP5 is unclear about what is meant by a license.
Dear Ximin,
thank you for your comments and for
On 12/12/11 01:19, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Charles Plessy wrote:
I would like to re-frame the discussion and remind that
[...]
In the case of the (L)GPL, it is common practice to use the license notices
as
found in headers of files as if they were the actual license text.
For what it's
Ximin Luo wrote:
On 12/12/11 01:19, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Perhaps a source of confusion is something Joerg wrote five years
ago[1]:
[...]
I continue to believe that what he meant is that such pre-made license
headers are good at covering their bases and that it is advisable to
take
Thanks for quick response :)
On 17/12/11 21:45, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Ximin Luo wrote:
On 12/12/11 01:19, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Perhaps a source of confusion is something Joerg wrote five years
ago[1]:
[...]
I continue to believe that what he meant is that such pre-made license
headers
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 03:45:03PM -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
So, the main change in practice that you are proposing is that
when reformatting a copyright file describing a project under the
GPL, packagers should not be allowed to write
License: GPL-2
This file is free
Steve Langasek wrote:
I disagree strongly. The cost of giving maintainers *different* ways to
represent the license status is much higher than the cost of requiring
maintainers to separately reproduce license headers for components that are
GPL-2 licensed vs. GPL-2+.
Reading this in the
Charles Plessy wrote:
I would like to re-frame the discussion and remind that
[...]
In the case of the (L)GPL, it is common practice to use the license notices as
found in headers of files as if they were the actual license text.
For what it's worth, I disagree, while I agree with Ximin Luo
Le Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 11:08:44PM +, Ximin Luo a écrit :
The fundamental problem:
DEP5 is unclear about what is meant by a license.
Dear Ximin,
thank you for your comments and for pointing out that the examples in the
current draft are not consistent with the draft's syntax. I will
Hi,
Ximin Luo wrote:
When packaging mozilla extensions I ran some problems with DEP5. I talked this
issue over on #645696 which eventually resulted in encouragement to move
forward
with a proposal for a change to be made.
I think this report contains multiple proposals. Let me try to
On 21/11/11 23:21, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Hi,
Ximin Luo wrote:
When packaging mozilla extensions I ran some problems with DEP5. I talked
this
issue over on #645696 which eventually resulted in encouragement to move
forward
with a proposal for a change to be made.
I think this
Ximin Luo wrote:
On 21/11/11 23:21, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Files: *
Copyright: - etc
License: GPL-2+
License: GPL-2
etc
[...]
Files: *
Copyright: - etc
License: GPL-2 with Font exception
License: GPL-2
etc
[...]
On 22/11/11 00:06, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Ximin Luo wrote:
On 21/11/11 23:21, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Files: *
Copyright: - etc
License: GPL-2+
License: GPL-2
etc
[...]
Files: *
Copyright: - etc
License: GPL-2 with Font exception
65 matches
Mail list logo
