Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

Matt Zagrabelny writes ("Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?"): > On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 10:53 AM, Ian Jackson > <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> > wrote: > > But I'm a hardy soul who is quite prepared to see a warning and decide >

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 10:53 AM, Ian Jackson < ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote: > > But I'm a hardy soul who is quite prepared to see a warning and decide > to ignore it :-). > > My view is that the purpose of a warning is to alert you to something, > so you can decide what to do about

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

Sean Whitton writes ("Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?"): > Our current culture under which many of us feel obligated to ensure our > package uses the latest Standards-Version is problematic. I quite agree. > IMO the point of the field is to ensure th

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

On Friday, 12 January 2018 03:08:59 CET Ben Hutchings wrote: > I have been meaning to look at regenerating debian/copyright based on > the SPDX tags, and possibly sending corrections upstream based on the > current content. But that's all. Feel free to get back to me if: - you intend to use cme

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

On Wed, 2018-01-10 at 00:11 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: [...] > src:linux, where complete authorship information is often not easily > available [1] and copyright ownership information is in many cases not > available at all [2], would actually be a good litmus test for what > requirements are

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 08:51:37AM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote: >... > I intend to work within the FTP Team to get some clarification on the team's > position on this, but I don't expect it to be quick. I agree we could do > with > better documentation of what the policy is and why. >...

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

Hello, On Sun, Jan 07 2018, Guido Günther wrote: > gbp-dch allows you to skip these commits based on tags present in the > commit message: "Gbp-Dch: Ignore". I use this frequently for patch > series that add up to "a user visible result" I want present in the > changelog. I also find deleting

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

Hi, On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 02:26:43PM +, Sean Whitton wrote: > Hello, > > On Tue, Jan 02 2018, Markus Koschany wrote: > > > The changelog is something which can be naturally derived from the > > changes made to a source package and excellent tools like > > git-buildpackage ("gbp dch") make

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 10:21:59PM +0100, Markus Koschany wrote: > Somehow other distributions like Fedora, Gentoo or > even FreeBSD can exist without the S-V field to describe their packages. They can also exist without d/copyright (which is also closer to the original thread :) ). -- WBR, wRAR

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

Quoting Markus Koschany (2018-01-03 22:21:59) > I'm really surprised that those who upload a package once in a blue > moon have the strongest opinions in this thread when we discuss how we > can reduce the maintenance burden and do something more useful with > our free time. You uploaded 19

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

Am 03.01.2018 um 10:11 schrieb Tobias Frost: > On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 10:51:56PM +0100, Markus Koschany wrote: [...] >> In fact my primary effort is to improve all packages which I maintain >> and touch and by raising my voice on this list I hope that future >> maintainers will suffer less from

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

Hello, On Tue, Jan 02 2018, Niels Thykier wrote: > That said, it would be a good start to add S-V to many the lintian > tags, so people can see which S-V they apply to. > (You may be tempted to just apply a filter on the S-V; unfortunately > some tags will change iteratively between policy

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

Hello, On Tue, Jan 02 2018, Markus Koschany wrote: > The changelog is something which can be naturally derived from the > changes made to a source package and excellent tools like > git-buildpackage ("gbp dch") make this kind of work rather simple. A > package description usually doesn't change.

Re: python2 warnings (Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

Hi Holger, > I think I would prefer to dependency-on-python-version-marked-for-end-of-life > to become a pedantic warning FYI I initially introduced this tag (and python-foo-but-no-python3-foo) as a pedantic level warning following roughly the same rationale as you outline. However, it was

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

Hello, On Mon, Jan 01 2018, Russ Allbery wrote: > Vincent Bernat writes: >> ❦ 1 janvier 2018 11:31 -0800, Russ Allbery  : > >>> So that when someone does have a chance to update the package, they >>> know where to start from when reading the upgrading

Re: python2 warnings (Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 02:03:58PM +0100, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > It is actionable, in a way. "in a way"… > IME, Debian holds quite some lobbying power, saying "we may end up > disabling this feature or not shipping the package at all" has some > importance to many projects. That may cause

Re: python2 warnings (Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 11:46:10AM +, Holger Levsen wrote: > W: munin-node: dependency-on-python-version-marked-for-end-of-life (Suggests: > python) > > in the vast majority of cases this is not actionable for us as package > maintainers, which is why I'm going to lintian override these

Re: python2 warnings (Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 07:44:01AM -0500, Jeremy Bicha wrote: > Has the python2 dependency issue been reported upstream yet? yes -- cheers, Holger signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: python2 warnings (Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 6:46 AM, Holger Levsen wrote: > On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 09:50:10PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > in the vast majority of cases this is not actionable for us as package > maintainers, which is why I'm going to lintian override these warnings > for

python2 warnings (Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 09:50:10PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > > W: python-pysmi: new-package-should-not-package-python2-module > > This is the translation of a group of people's opinion. > With the Python 2 EOL coming in 2020, adding more Python 2 stuff isn't > going to help us migrate to Python 3,

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 10:51:56PM +0100, Markus Koschany wrote: > Am 02.01.2018 um 21:57 schrieb Tollef Fog Heen: > > ]] Markus Koschany > > [...] > > Also, the Standards-Version header is only recommended to be included, > > it's not mandatory. If its existence offends you so much and you have

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

❦ 3 janvier 2018 08:43 +0200, Lars Wirzenius  : > Over the past several years, I've spent less time updating > Standard-Version in my own packages than I've spent reading this email > thread. I don't want to ridicule anyone's concerns, but I'm of the > opinion that when it comes to

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 09:33:08PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > These statements are not in contradiction. Saying "this package complies > with policy version X" doesn't say anything about what version of policy the > package *should* comply with. Our tooling should absolutely be optimized >

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 10:22:19AM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 04:25:07PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > If S-V is declaring that the package conforms to some older version of the > > > policy then all the tools should check that package against that policy > > >

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 04:25:07PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > > If S-V is declaring that the package conforms to some older version of the > > policy then all the tools should check that package against that policy > > and not against the latest one. > > No, they should not. S-V is a

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

On Sunday, December 31, 2017 8:42:29 PM CST Stuart Prescott wrote: > Vincent Bernat wrote: > > Lintian is full of opinions. For example, I often get: > > > > W: python-pysnmp4-doc: extra-license-file > > usr/share/doc/python-pysnmp4-doc/html/_sources/license.txt > > That is not an opinion, it

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 12:55:36PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > On Mon, Jan 01, 2018 at 05:26:35PM +, Sean Whitton wrote: > > IMO the point of the field is to ensure that you /don't/ have to upgrade > > to the latest version of Policy right away. It allows you to keep track > > of the

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

Markus Koschany writes: > I believe that the Standards-Version header should not be part of a > debian/control file. I understand your reasoning why you want to keep it > and why it is useful for you. Though in my opinion a debian/control > file, or generally speaking all

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

On Tue, 02 Jan 2018 22:19:26 +0100, Vincent Bernat wrote: > Good to know. Unfortunately, I get "E: x source: > no-standards-version-field" from Lintian. Won't the package be rejected > by FTP masters? Doesn't seem so: % grep no-standards-version-field

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

Am 02.01.2018 um 21:57 schrieb Tollef Fog Heen: > ]] Markus Koschany > >> Am 02.01.2018 um 19:38 schrieb Russ Allbery: >> [...] >>> I think of the Standards-Version header in a package is a bookmark: this >>> is where I last left off in updating the packaging. It doesn't change the >>> standard

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

❦ 2 janvier 2018 21:57 +0100, Tollef Fog Heen  : > Also, the Standards-Version header is only recommended to be included, > it's not mandatory. If its existence offends you so much and you have > so few bugs to fix in your packages that the primary effort of > maintaining your

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

]] Markus Koschany > Am 02.01.2018 um 19:38 schrieb Russ Allbery: > [...] > > I think of the Standards-Version header in a package is a bookmark: this > > is where I last left off in updating the packaging. It doesn't change the > > standard by which the package should be judged. > > I believe

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

Am 02.01.2018 um 19:38 schrieb Russ Allbery: [...] > I think of the Standards-Version header in a package is a bookmark: this > is where I last left off in updating the packaging. It doesn't change the > standard by which the package should be judged. I believe that the Standards-Version header

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

Andrey Rahmatullin writes: > On Mon, Jan 01, 2018 at 05:26:35PM +, Sean Whitton wrote: >> IMO the point of the field is to ensure that you /don't/ have to >> upgrade to the latest version of Policy right away. It allows you to >> keep track of the version of Policy you are

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 08:29:00AM +, Niels Thykier wrote: > > If S-V is declaring that the package conforms to some older version of the > > policy then all the tools should check that package against that policy > > and not against the latest one. > > > > Lintian's architecture does not

Re: On debhelper compat levels (Was: Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?)

Quoting Niels Thykier (2018-01-02 12:19:00) > Jonas Smedegaard: > > Quoting Niels Thykier (2018-01-02 09:23:00) > >> Andrey Rahmatullin: > >>> On Mon, Jan 01, 2018 at 08:40:38PM +0100, Jérémy Lal wrote: > wouldn't it be simpler to couple debhelper dependency to > Standards-Version ? >

On debhelper compat levels (Was: Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?)

Jonas Smedegaard: > Quoting Niels Thykier (2018-01-02 09:23:00) >> Andrey Rahmatullin: >>> On Mon, Jan 01, 2018 at 08:40:38PM +0100, Jérémy Lal wrote: wouldn't it be simpler to couple debhelper dependency to Standards-Version ? >>> There are packages which may break with newer

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

Quoting Niels Thykier (2018-01-02 09:23:00) > Andrey Rahmatullin: >> On Mon, Jan 01, 2018 at 08:40:38PM +0100, Jérémy Lal wrote: >>> wouldn't it be simpler to couple debhelper dependency to >>> Standards-Version ? >> There are packages which may break with newer debhelper, but can be >> easily

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

Andrey Rahmatullin: > On Mon, Jan 01, 2018 at 05:26:35PM +, Sean Whitton wrote: >> IMO the point of the field is to ensure that you /don't/ have to upgrade >> to the latest version of Policy right away. It allows you to keep track >> of the version of Policy you are up-to-date with, so you

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

Andrey Rahmatullin: > On Mon, Jan 01, 2018 at 08:40:38PM +0100, Jérémy Lal wrote: >> wouldn't it be simpler to couple debhelper dependency to >> Standards-Version ? > There are packages which may break with newer debhelper, but can be easily > updated to the current policy. > Also, there are

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

On Mon, Jan 01, 2018 at 05:26:35PM +, Sean Whitton wrote: > IMO the point of the field is to ensure that you /don't/ have to upgrade > to the latest version of Policy right away. It allows you to keep track > of the version of Policy you are up-to-date with, so you can do it > later/someone

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

On Mon, Jan 01, 2018 at 08:40:38PM +0100, Jérémy Lal wrote: > wouldn't it be simpler to couple debhelper dependency to > Standards-Version ? There are packages which may break with newer debhelper, but can be easily updated to the current policy. -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: PGP

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

Vincent Bernat writes: > ❦ 1 janvier 2018 11:31 -0800, Russ Allbery  : >> So that when someone does have a chance to update the package, they >> know where to start from when reading the upgrading checklist. > I never do that and I don't intend to do that

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

❦ 1 janvier 2018 19:45 GMT, "Dr. Bas Wijnen"  : >> If we don't comply with the latest policy, this is considered a serious bug. > > Yes. But a package complying with the previous policy, but not the current > one > is unlikely, because policy changes are normally written

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

❦ 1 janvier 2018 11:31 -0800, Russ Allbery  : >>> Purpose of the Standards-Version field is *not* to keep you busy >>> silencing corresponding lintian warning, but to state which version of >>> Debian Policy the package is verified to comply with. > >> And why is it useful to

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

Jérémy Lal writes: > About sparing time, having to maintain > debian/compat > Build-Depends debhelper > Standards-Version > is overkill. Sure, i suppose there are times it's useful to be decoupled, > but wouldn't it be simpler to couple debhelper dependency to >

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

On Mon, Jan 01, 2018 at 07:43:06PM +0100, Vincent Bernat wrote: > ❦ 1 janvier 2018 17:47 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard  : > > >> I have very little time for Debian. Each time I update a package, I have > >> to bump Standards-Version and fix new Lintian warnings. I would > >>

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

2018-01-01 20:33 GMT+01:00 Tollef Fog Heen : > ]] Vincent Bernat > > > ❦ 1 janvier 2018 17:47 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard : > > > > > Purpose of the Standards-Version field is *not* to keep you busy > > > silencing corresponding lintian warning, but to state which

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

]] Vincent Bernat > ❦ 1 janvier 2018 17:47 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard  : > > > Purpose of the Standards-Version field is *not* to keep you busy > > silencing corresponding lintian warning, but to state which version of > > Debian Policy the package is verified to comply with. >

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

Vincent Bernat writes: > ❦ 1 janvier 2018 17:47 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard  : >> Purpose of the Standards-Version field is *not* to keep you busy >> silencing corresponding lintian warning, but to state which version of >> Debian Policy the package is verified

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

❦ 1 janvier 2018 17:47 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard  : >> I have very little time for Debian. Each time I update a package, I have >> to bump Standards-Version and fix new Lintian warnings. I would >> appreciate if we would assess the time developers will take to update >> packages

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

Hello, On Mon, Jan 01 2018, Vincent Bernat wrote: > I have very little time for Debian. Each time I update a package, I > have to bump Standards-Version and fix new Lintian warnings. I would > appreciate if we would assess the time developers will take to update > packages because of a change.

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

Quoting Vincent Bernat (2018-01-01 17:19:36) > ❦ 1 janvier 2018 14:28 GMT, Chris Lamb  : > >>> W: python3-pysnmp4: >>> python-package-depends-on-package-from-other-python-variant (Suggests: >>> python-pysnmp4-doc) >>> >>> My solution? Removing the Sugggests and pray someone

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

❦ 1 janvier 2018 14:28 GMT, Chris Lamb  : > > W: python3-pysnmp4: > > python-package-depends-on-package-from-other-python-variant (Suggests: > > python-pysnmp4-doc) > > > > My solution? Removing the Sugggests and pray someone doesn't open a bug > > to request suggesting the

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

Paul Wise wrote: > > W: python3-pysnmp4: > > python-package-depends-on-package-from-other-python-variant (Suggests: > > python-pysnmp4-doc) > > > > My solution? Removing the Sugggests and pray someone doesn't open a bug > > to request suggesting the documentation. I'm finding it difficult to

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

Vincent Bernat wrote: > As I have said previously, the problem also appears with warnings. I > would never dare running Lintian in pedantic mode. > > Lintian is full of opinions. For example, I often get: > > W: python-pysnmp4-doc: extra-license-file >

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 9:40 PM, Vincent Bernat wrote: > I would never dare running Lintian in pedantic mode. I feel the other way, I always want to hear about every way I can improve a package, no matter how small or unimportant the change is. > Lintian is full of opinions. For example, I

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

❦ 27 décembre 2017 17:27 +0800, Paul Wise  : >> I already often open or reply to bugs in lintian (including when I think >> severity is wrong). The main problem is not when lintian is wrong, the >> main problem if when lintian is right but is nit-picking. While I >> understand

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Vincent Bernat wrote: > I already often open or reply to bugs in lintian (including when I think > severity is wrong). The main problem is not when lintian is wrong, the > main problem if when lintian is right but is nit-picking. While I > understand some of us

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

On Tue, 2017-12-26 at 19:27 +0100, Vincent Bernat wrote: >  ❦ 26 décembre 2017 10:03 -0800, Russ Allbery  : > This is the sort of thing that makes me feel like you have your > > Lintian > > settings turned up too high for the amount of nit-picking that you > > want. > > The

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

❦ 26 décembre 2017 10:03 -0800, Russ Allbery  : >> As an example, the spelling errors are useful for debian/ directory (as >> informational), but totally useless for upstream stuff. For me, they are >> not worth telling upstream, they are not worth adding to an override >>

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

Vincent Bernat writes: > As an example, the spelling errors are useful for debian/ directory (as > informational), but totally useless for upstream stuff. For me, they are > not worth telling upstream, they are not worth adding to an override > (which could become outdated and

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

Hey Vincent, > I already often open or reply to bugs in lintian (including when I think > severity is wrong) Thanks! Please continue to do so :) > W: python3-pyasn1: spelling-error-in-description-synopsis Python Python > (duplicate word) Python > > Description: ASN.1 library for Python

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

❦ 24 décembre 2017 13:24 GMT, Chris Lamb  : >> Unrelated, but I am developing some kind of "lintian fatigue". […] >> Sometimes Lintian is right, sometimes it's not. > > As you imply, static analysis tools need to maintain a healthy signal- > to-noise ratio for them to remain

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

Hi Vincent, > Unrelated, but I am developing some kind of "lintian fatigue". […] > Sometimes Lintian is right, sometimes it's not. As you imply, static analysis tools need to maintain a healthy signal- to-noise ratio for them to remain relevant and useful. Needless to say, if Lintian is

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

On Sun, Dec 24, 2017 at 6:28 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote: > All I'm saying, is that copyright holder information / author list is > mandatory if the license mandates it. The case of an anonymous author > shows we've accepted software in Debian without a copyright holder. Software with an anonymous

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

Quoting Thomas Goirand (2017-12-24 11:28:06) > This is a very interesting discussion, it's IMO important to have it. > On 12/23/2017 02:45 AM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: >>> The only thing we really need is to make sure about the license of >>> the software. Having a copyright holder name is only

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

Hi Jonas, This is a very interesting discussion, it's IMO important to have it. On 12/23/2017 02:45 AM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: >> The only thing we really need is to make sure about the license of the >> software. Having a copyright holder name is only *helping* to make >> sure that we are

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

Jeremy Stanley writes: > On 2017-12-23 15:15:35 -0800 (-0800), Russ Allbery wrote: > [...] >> I think a separate (public) mailing list dedicated to this would >> be ideal > [...] > As in debian-legal@l.d.o or a completely new ML specifically for > copyright documentation

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

On 2017-12-23 15:15:35 -0800 (-0800), Russ Allbery wrote: [...] > I think a separate (public) mailing list dedicated to this would > be ideal [...] As in debian-legal@l.d.o or a completely new ML specifically for copyright documentation discussions? -- Jeremy Stanley

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

Scott Kitterman writes: > As much as people find writing debian/copyright, imagine the pain > associated with checking it. Personally, I don't want it to be any > harder than it has to be. I'm currently canvasing other members of the > FTP Team to understand what everyone

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

On December 23, 2017 2:20:43 PM EST, Marc Haber wrote: >On Fri, 22 Dec 2017 08:51:37 -0500, Scott Kitterman > wrote: >>Marc, I don't want you to take this as me beating up on you, because >that's >>not my intent, but I find your tone

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

On Fri, 22 Dec 2017 08:51:37 -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote: >Marc, I don't want you to take this as me beating up on you, because that's >not my intent, but I find your tone frustrating. The FTP Team is not a closed >cabal. There are regular calls for volunteers (there is

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

Vincent Bernat writes: > ❦ 22 décembre 2017 19:58 -0800, Russ Allbery  : >> I just found a few packages under Apache 2.0 that didn't distribute the >> NOTICE file. It turned out that the same information was in >> debian/copyright, but that may not be the

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

❦ 22 décembre 2017 19:58 -0800, Russ Allbery  : >> IANAL, but it seems pretty clear to me that this is not the case, at >> least for source packages (see 4.c), for binary packages we also have to >> distribute any associated NOTICE files (see 4.d, but I guess we violate >> this

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

On 2017-12-23 11:53:38 +0800 (+0800), Paul Wise wrote: > On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 9:07 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote: > > > (ie: the Apache license doesn't require listing copyright holders). > > IANAL, but it seems pretty clear to me that this is not the case, at > least for source packages (see

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

On 23 Dec. 2017 16:54, "Paul Wise" wrote: On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 9:07 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote: > (ie: the Apache license doesn't require listing copyright holders). IANAL, but it seems pretty clear to me that this is not the case, at least for source packages (see 4.c),

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

Paul Wise writes: > IANAL, but it seems pretty clear to me that this is not the case, at > least for source packages (see 4.c), for binary packages we also have to > distribute any associated NOTICE files (see 4.d, but I guess we violate > this rule quite a lot), which I would

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 9:07 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote: > (ie: the Apache license doesn't require listing copyright holders). IANAL, but it seems pretty clear to me that this is not the case, at least for source packages (see 4.c), for binary packages we also have to distribute any associated

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

Quoting Thomas Goirand (2017-12-23 01:45:43) > On 12/20/2017 10:31 AM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: >> Quoting Holger Levsen (2017-12-19 22:01:52) >>> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 06:44:54PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > What if the author is anonymous then? Then who granted the license? >>> >>>

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

On 12/19/2017 05:33 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > On 2017-12-19 15:17:56 +0100 (+0100), Thomas Goirand wrote: > [...] >> I wish you good luck with that. I attempted *twice* to have the >> copyright holder information attached to each upstream project on >> upstream OpenStack, and twice this was a

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

On 12/20/2017 12:46 AM, Russ Allbery wrote: > The problem with all of these discussions, however, and the reason why I > largely stopped participating in them (particularly with my Policy Editor > hat on), is that the rules for what one actually has to do in Debian to > get a package accepted are

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

On 12/20/2017 10:31 AM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > Quoting Holger Levsen (2017-12-19 22:01:52) >> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 06:44:54PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: What if the author is anonymous then? >>> Then who granted the license? >> >> the anonymous author. > > Ok. Then (assuming the

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 8:51 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > I find demands on my time from those who > aren't frustrating. Hi, I'm nitpicking here, but that's what this whole thread is about: demands on the time of Debian maintainers and whether it's necessary for everyone

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

Scott Kitterman writes ("Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?"): > Personally, as a member of the FTP Team (Assistant, not Master), I'm > reluctant to participate in discussions like this unless I'm highly > confident that I understand the team policy on such m

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

On Wednesday, December 20, 2017 08:08:04 PM Marc Haber wrote: > On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 15:46:58 -0800, Russ Allbery > > wrote: > >The problem with all of these discussions, however, and the reason why I > >largely stopped participating in them (particularly with my Policy Editor >

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 15:46:58 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: >The problem with all of these discussions, however, and the reason why I >largely stopped participating in them (particularly with my Policy Editor >hat on), is that the rules for what one actually has to do in Debian to

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 03:46:58PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > This is all kind of a mess, and I think Debian would be well-served by > looking for opportunities to minimize the very real and significant cost > to Debian contributors for doing boring and demotivating paperwork. > That's probably

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

Quoting Felipe Sateler (2017-12-19 23:52:55) > On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 15:41:00 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: >> Quoting Felipe Sateler (2017-12-19 14:20:42) >>> Sometimes the license requires listing the copyright holders. In >>> those cases, the list of holders must be present in the copyright

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

Quoting Holger Levsen (2017-12-19 22:01:52) > On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 06:44:54PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: >>> What if the author is anonymous then? >> Then who granted the license? > > the anonymous author. Ok. Then (assuming the source mentions only that anonymous _author_ not who claims

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

Felipe Sateler writes: > I suspect you are setting an impossibly high bar for determining the > license of a work. We can (and do) rely on upstream telling us the truth > when they say the work is of a certain license, and that contributions > from third parties have been

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 15:41:00 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > Quoting Felipe Sateler (2017-12-19 14:20:42) >> Sometimes the license requires listing the copyright holders. In those >> cases, the list of holders must be present in the copyright file. In >> the rest, there is no need to list them.

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 06:44:54PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > What if the author is anonymous then? > Then who granted the license? the anonymous author. this of course can lead to certain problems, _maybe_. > If you buy the Eiffel tower from someone anonymously, then you are in >

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

Quoting Thomas Goirand (2017-12-19 17:23:08) > On 12/19/2017 03:41 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: >> Quoting Felipe Sateler (2017-12-19 14:20:42) >>> Sometimes the license requires listing the copyright holders. In >>> those cases, the list of holders must be present in the copyright >>> file. In

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

On 2017-12-19 15:17:56 +0100 (+0100), Thomas Goirand wrote: [...] > I wish you good luck with that. I attempted *twice* to have the > copyright holder information attached to each upstream project on > upstream OpenStack, and twice this was a failure. Maybe I'm not good > with communication, but I

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

On 12/19/2017 03:41 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > Quoting Felipe Sateler (2017-12-19 14:20:42) >> Sometimes the license requires listing the copyright holders. In those >> cases, the list of holders must be present in the copyright file. In >> the rest, there is no need to list them. Only the

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

Quoting Felipe Sateler (2017-12-19 14:20:42) > Sometimes the license requires listing the copyright holders. In those > cases, the list of holders must be present in the copyright file. In > the rest, there is no need to list them. Only the license matters. > > .oO( should the copyright file be

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

On 12/19/2017 02:20 PM, Felipe Sateler wrote: > Sometimes the license requires listing the copyright holders. In those > cases, the list of holders must be present in the copyright file. In the > rest, there is no need to list them. Only the license matters. > > .oO( should the copyright file

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

On 12/19/2017 10:47 AM, Ben Finney wrote: > We (the Debian Project) don't have to accept being the *only* ones > shouldering this burden. Large upstream organisations have large > shoulders. > > Surely a team responsible for a large code base also must – to avoid > self-delusion – confront the

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

Quoting Ian Jackson (2017-12-19 14:06:14) > Ben Finney writes ("Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?"): > > Surely a team responsible for a large code base also must – to avoid > > self-delusion – confront the need to know, with confidence that comes >

  1   2   >