Charles Plessy wrote:
> [If I remember correctly, the question below is whether the law in the U.S.A.
> requires us to reproduce all copyright statements from the source files when
> we
> redistribute binary programs, or if this is only needed when the license
> expliciterly asks so.]
>
I believ
[If I remember correctly, the question below is whether the law in the U.S.A.
requires us to reproduce all copyright statements from the source files when we
redistribute binary programs, or if this is only needed when the license
expliciterly asks so.]
Le Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 12:55:58PM -0700, Ru
Russ Allbery wrote:
> Joerg Jaspert writes:
>
>> Also, keep in mind what Mark wrote elsewhere. He asked the DPL to let
>> SPI get us some lawyers input on the question. Thats probably the best
>> course.
>
> Yes. I'm wholeheartedly in favor of this, and I think we should hold any
> resolution o
Manoj Srivastava writes:
> On Thu, Mar 26 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> One intermediate way in which I could see this specification going into
>> Policy without it being required for anyone would be to add a
>> subsection of the copyright section that says "you are not required to
>> use any part
On Thu, Mar 26 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava writes:
>
>> Not currently seems to imply that at some point it will be
>> mandatory at some point. I find that somewhat presumptuous, but
>> perhaps I am reading too much into the "in this current time" bit. I
>> would put
Manoj Srivastava writes:
> Not currently seems to imply that at some point it will be
> mandatory at some point. I find that somewhat presumptuous, but
> perhaps I am reading too much into the "in this current time" bit. I
> would put it as this is a proposal. It is not, and will not
Le Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 01:32:46AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
>
> Generally, the forum for discussion development for Debian is the
> debian-devel mailing list. If we are having to move to some other
> forum, or wait around and not discuss this while something happens to a
> DEP
Manoj Srivastava writes:
> Not currently seems to imply that at some point it will be
> mandatory at some point. I find that somewhat presumptuous, but
> perhaps I am reading too much into the "in this current time" bit.
I think perhaps you are. I read it only as leaving that option
On Tue, Mar 24 2009, Ben Finney wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava writes:
>
>> On Tue, Mar 24 2009, Ben Finney wrote:
>>
>> If the spec is being bruited under the understanding that
>> the flaws do not matter
>
> Who's doing that? Of course the flaws matter.
>
>> So answering criticism
On Wed, Mar 25 2009, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> ke, 2009-03-25 kello 01:32 +, Noah Slater kirjoitti:
>> On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 12:39:46AM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> > I'm curious... What do you think *is* the "Debian way of doing things
>> > like this" ?
>>
>> Manoj's email strongly implie
ke, 2009-03-25 kello 01:32 +, Noah Slater kirjoitti:
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 12:39:46AM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> > I'm curious... What do you think *is* the "Debian way of doing things
> > like this" ?
>
> Manoj's email strongly implied that a DEP was needless bureaucracy.
>
> I'm har
ti, 2009-03-24 kello 17:50 -0500, Manoj Srivastava kirjoitti:
> I am expressing my opinion now, on a mailing list devoted to
> debian development. I have not been keeping up witht eh bureaucratic
> rigmarole that seems to be being wrapped around discussions, not after
> we got the notic
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:44:20 +1100 Ben Finney
wrote:
>Scott Kitterman writes:
>
>> On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 13:22:04 +1100 Ben Finney
>> wrote:
>> ...
>> >Those who don't like the very *idea* of a machine-parseable format
>> >for .debian/copyright ? apparently exist, but I don't understand
>> >the
Scott Kitterman writes:
> On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 13:22:04 +1100 Ben Finney
> wrote:
> ...
> >Those who don't like the very *idea* of a machine-parseable format
> >for .debian/copyright ? apparently exist, but I don't understand
> >their position yet :-)
>
> I'd be one of those.
Thank you for you
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 13:22:04 +1100 Ben Finney
wrote:
...
>Those who don't like the very *idea* of a machine-parseable format for
> .debian/copyright apparently exist, but I don't understand their
>position yet :-)
I'd be one of those.
Whenever you add new structural rules on a file it creates
Manoj Srivastava writes:
> On Tue, Mar 24 2009, Ben Finney wrote:
>
> If the spec is being bruited under the understanding that
> the flaws do not matter
Who's doing that? Of course the flaws matter.
> So answering criticism of the current spec with "well, it is not
> going t
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 12:39:46AM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> I'm curious... What do you think *is* the "Debian way of doing things
> like this" ?
Manoj's email strongly implied that a DEP was needless bureaucracy.
I'm hardly likely to argue with you about what constitutes the Debian way, but
Noah Slater wrote:
>On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 05:50:26PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> I am expressing my opinion now, on a mailing list devoted to
>> debian development. I have not been keeping up witht eh bureaucratic
>> rigmarole that seems to be being wrapped around discussions, no
On Tue, Mar 24 2009, Ben Finney wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava writes:
>
>> At this stage? If you are not willing to listen to feedback,
>> that had better be never.
>
> Feedback on the machine-parseable copyright specification is openly
> solicited (though it is currently inefficiently gathe
On Tue, Mar 24 2009, Noah Slater wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 05:50:26PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> I am expressing my opinion now, on a mailing list devoted to
>> debian development. I have not been keeping up witht eh
>> bureaucratic rigmarole that seems to be being wrapped
Manoj Srivastava writes:
> At this stage? If you are not willing to listen to feedback,
> that had better be never.
Feedback on the machine-parseable copyright specification is openly
solicited (though it is currently inefficiently gathered and
processed, and that needs to be addressed)
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 05:50:26PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I am expressing my opinion now, on a mailing list devoted to
> debian development. I have not been keeping up witht eh bureaucratic
> rigmarole that seems to be being wrapped around discussions, not after
> we got the n
Bill Allombert writes:
> So we already allow packages to reference other packages for license
> informations.
With the important requirement that the referenced package that
contains the license information must also be installed on every
system where the referring package is installed (because
On Tue, Mar 24 2009, Noah Slater wrote:
>> Nice sound bite. But a spec or a standard's big value comes if
>> it is fixed to be widely accepted, even if it means that some parts of
>> the standard are "optional".
>
> I hope that you will contribute your opinion when DEP 5 has a draft to
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 04:26:43PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> At this stage? If you are not willing to listen to feedback,
> that had better be never. If the intent is for this to be broadly
> adopted, the specification should be fixed as early as possible, and we
> should not ado
On Tue, Mar 24 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava writes:
>
>> ,
>> | 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
>> |notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
>> |documentation and/or other materials provided with the distr
On Tue, Mar 24 2009, Noah Slater wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 10:38:47AM +, Neil Williams wrote:
>> I'm still not convinced that machine-parseable formats are genuinely
>> useful or maintainable and I feel that machine-parseable
>> requirements inevitably impair human readability of copyri
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 09:19:36PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > But we do distribute binaries in the debs - and debian/copyright is
> > not only for the source but also ends up in the deb.
> Actually, Policy does not make mandatory for the .deb file to contain
> a copyright file at all:
>
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 01:32:40PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Emilio Pozuelo Monfort writes:
>
> > And even if it was, there are binary packages whose /usr/share/doc/$pkg
> > is a symlink, so they have no copyright.
>
> All such binaries have a hard dependency on a package that does include
>
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 11:47:37AM +0100, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
> > Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > The real problem here is that FTP masters require the list of copyright
> > holders to be up-to-date each time the package goes through NEW.
> > Whatever justificat
Emilio Pozuelo Monfort writes:
> And even if it was, there are binary packages whose /usr/share/doc/$pkg
> is a symlink, so they have no copyright.
All such binaries have a hard dependency on a package that does include
copyright, but that's a good point. I don't know if legally that hard
depen
Manoj Srivastava writes:
> ,
> | 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
> |notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
> |documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
> `
>
> Do we ever distribut
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 22 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
>> Neil Williams writes:
>>
>>> We also need clarity on why debian/copyright should have a higher level
>>> of scrutiny than the upstream itself. Debian does not hold copyright on
>>> most upstream source packages, why do we sec
On Sun, Mar 22 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Neil Williams writes:
>
>> We also need clarity on why debian/copyright should have a higher level
>> of scrutiny than the upstream itself. Debian does not hold copyright on
>> most upstream source packages, why do we second-guess upstream teams?
>
> It'
Neil Williams writes:
> Is it really useful to have only a subset of packages using the
> format? Isn't only going to be the small packages that have no
> particular licence problems that would adopt it because it's almost
> trivial to do so? Unless maintainers of complex packages or packages
> w
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 10:38:47AM +, Neil Williams wrote:
> I'm still not convinced that machine-parseable formats are genuinely
> useful or maintainable and I feel that machine-parseable
> requirements inevitably impair human readability of copyright files.
> That's not a win, AFAICT.
Don't
Rene Engelhard wrote:
Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
The real problem here is that FTP masters require the list of copyright
holders to be up-to-date each time the package goes through NEW.
Whatever justification exists for this requirement, I???m starting to find
it unaccepta
Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
> Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> The real problem here is that FTP masters require the list of copyright
> holders to be up-to-date each time the package goes through NEW.
> Whatever justification exists for this requirement, I???m starting to find
> it unaccepta
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 00:43:48 -0700
Steve Langasek wrote:
> > I have been reading this discussion a bit and I've been wondering what
> > use-case you actually have for machine-readable debian/copyright files.
>
> This is quite different than having the *license terms* recorded in a
> machine-
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 09:18:41 +
Neil Williams wrote:
> There is nothing in debian/copyright to help with that decision (nor
> should there be, before anyone suggests it, because that doesn't scale
> either).
Actually, I'm reconsidering that a bit - separate copyright files for
separate binary
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 07:37:48 +0100
Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 12:55:58PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Well, the one thing that I think we need to clarify here is whether we
> > need to list the licenses for files that aren't source code for what goes
> > into the binary distri
Mike Hommey wrote:
Hi,
> Who cares that file foo.c is licensed under GPL and bar.c under BSD?
> People that want to take the source and use it elsewhere. These people
> are obviously looking at the sources, and don't really need
> debian/copyright information.
Let's add that if you are reusing
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 09:00:34PM +0100, Arthur de Jong wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-03-22 at 12:11 +, Noah Slater wrote:
> > Firmly in my mind is the cost/benefit of this extra effort. If we
> > succeed in integrating debian/copyright checks into lintian, or dpkg
> > and it's front-ends, it seems re
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 12:55:58PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Well, the one thing that I think we need to clarify here is whether we
> need to list the licenses for files that aren't source code for what goes
> into the binary distribution, such as the build system. The files from
> Autoconf and
On Mon, 2009-03-23 at 10:03 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> > Anyway, thanks for the work on the format. To me it seems to
> > probably be a good thing. I hope this mail wasn't too negative.
>
> I find this a little confusing, since you spent most of your message
> saying how you *don't* think it's a g
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
The real problem here is that FTP masters require the list of copyright
holders to be up-to-date each time the package goes through NEW.
Whatever justification exists for this requirement, I???m starting to find
it unacceptable. If a package has to go through NEW, it takes ab
On Sat, 2009-03-21 at 16:24 +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le samedi 21 mars 2009 à 15:58 +0100, Joerg Jaspert a écrit :
> > Honestly, if you cant deal with listing the Authors/(C) holders - dont
> > maintain a package. It is not much work to list them.
>
> Bullshit. The last time FTP masters R
On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 15:00:00 -0700
Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> > No. It is not up to the Debian maintainer to decide that some
> > contributor has written enough of the code to also be mentioned in
> > the (C) lines in a particular file. But as soon as upstream lists
> > them either in a file head
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 09:00:34PM +0100, Arthur de Jong wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-03-22 at 12:11 +, Noah Slater wrote:
> > Firmly in my mind is the cost/benefit of this extra effort. If we
> > succeed in integrating debian/copyright checks into lintian, or dpkg
> > and it's front-ends, it seems re
Peter Palfrader writes:
> On Sun, 22 Mar 2009, Noah Slater wrote:
>
> > Listing the licences (not necessarily copyright holders) in a
> > machine readable format would allow lintian checks to be
> > developed, and maybe even automatic license compatibility checks
> > to be performed.
>
> The wa
Arthur de Jong writes:
> I have been reading this discussion a bit and I've been wondering
> what use-case you actually have for machine-readable
> debian/copyright files.
Several off the top of my head:
* Automated generation of ‘license::foo’ tags for the package,
allowing users to select o
Le dimanche 22 mars 2009 à 20:11 +, Noah Slater a écrit :
> > Did you mean "copyright" here? No one is disputing the need to document
> > the license of every file that goes into forming the contents of the
> > binary package.
>
> No, I meant license.
>
> It seems people ARE disputing that l
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>
>>> No. It is not up to the Debian maintainer to decide that some
>>> contributor has written enough of the code to also be mentioned in the
>>> (C) lines in a particular file. But as soon as upstream lists them
>>> either in a file header or the AUTHORS file the Debian maint
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 09:08:54PM +, Noah Slater wrote:
> Am I the cat's mother? I'm not sure which is more rude, replying to emails
> faster than other people or criticising someone's behaviour in a public forum.
> If you think I reply to emails too fast, please do so in private in the
> fut
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 09:55:10PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> He is monopolizing the discussion. He should let some time pass between
> replies to take into account the opinions of others. Furthermore, by
> replying too fast he is actively making the discussion non-followable by
> many persons
On Sun, 22 Mar 2009, David Paleino wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 21:24:51 +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 02:47:04 +, Noah Slater wrote:
> > [21 times]
> > On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 20:19:56 +, Noah Slater wrote:
> >
> > may I suggest you stop doing that?
>
> What
On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 21:24:51 +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 02:47:04 +, Noah Slater wrote:
> [21 times]
> On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 20:19:56 +, Noah Slater wrote:
>
> may I suggest you stop doing that?
What's wrong with properly replying without breaking threads? Ye
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 02:47:04 +, Noah Slater wrote:
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 02:53:51 +, Noah Slater wrote:
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 02:55:47 +, Noah Slater wrote:
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 02:58:56 +, Noah Slater wrote:
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 03:02:51 +, Noah Slater wrote:
On S
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 09:00:34PM +0100, Arthur de Jong wrote:
> I can understand there may be benefits of a parsable format but I don't
> directly see enough gain. On the other hand there seems to be a lot of
> (perceived) cost involved (maintainer work).
Implicit in your email is the idea that
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 01:02:22PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> we can just copy that notice, ignoring the fact that ISC doesn't do
> copyright assignment and the actual copyrights are held by way more
> different people than are explicitly mentioned there. I don't think
> there's any utility in d
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 12:55:58PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I think part of the problem right now is that people aren't sure what to
> expect and are feeling like this review is somewhat unpredictable. This
> is what I'm hoping to be able to help with by revising the Policy section.
> If we ca
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 12:29:37PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Noah Slater writes:
>
> > Having said that, I am thinking that fully documenting the license of
> > each file provides a handy way to ensure that developers are thoroughly
> > checking the package for licensing problems.
>
> Did you m
On Sun, 2009-03-22 at 12:11 +, Noah Slater wrote:
> Firmly in my mind is the cost/benefit of this extra effort. If we
> succeed in integrating debian/copyright checks into lintian, or dpkg
> and it's front-ends, it seems reasonable to imagine that this effort
> would be a good trade-off.
I hav
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 07:10:46PM +, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> > A license check must, by definition, involve each file in the package.
> >
> > As re-quoted from the quote you previously quoted:
> >
> > "I don't see why it should be considered that much extra effort
> > documenting
> > the pr
Neil Williams writes:
> We also need clarity on why debian/copyright should have a higher level
> of scrutiny than the upstream itself. Debian does not hold copyright on
> most upstream source packages, why do we second-guess upstream teams?
It's worth noting here that most upstreams distribute
Joerg Jaspert writes:
> Also, keep in mind what Mark wrote elsewhere. He asked the DPL to let
> SPI get us some lawyers input on the question. Thats probably the best
> course.
Yes. I'm wholeheartedly in favor of this, and I think we should hold any
resolution of this discussion for the results
Noah Slater writes:
> Having said that, I am thinking that fully documenting the license of
> each file provides a handy way to ensure that developers are thoroughly
> checking the package for licensing problems.
Did you mean "copyright" here? No one is disputing the need to document
the licens
Jonas Meurer (21/03/2009):
> Joerg, please don't you see the consequences of your harsh discussion
> style?
You can cross out “discussion” here.
Mraw,
KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On 2009-03-22, Noah Slater wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 04:31:58AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> Le dimanche 22 mars 2009 à 02:58 +, Noah Slater a écrit :
>> > Again, while the documentation of individual licenses may not be policy,
>> > it is
>> > certainly policy for each package to
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 11:35:26AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I could see an argument that putting the contents of NOTICE into
> debian/copyright satisfies the second possibility -- "within the ...
> documentation, if provided along with the Derivative works" -- but I think
> just installing the
On Sat, 2009-03-21 at 15:58 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> Honestly, if you cant deal with listing the Authors/(C) holders - dont
> maintain a package.
Is this you volunteering to maintain X?
Cheers,
Julien
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "uns
Florian Weimer writes:
> The file NOTICE contains this hint:
>
> | This product includes software developed at
> | The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
>
> I'm wondering if this should be reflected in the copyright file (and
> if the NOTICE file should be installed in the bina
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 03:27:46PM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> The way this process should work is that you (or somebody) writes those
> tools.
>
> Then, if DDs see that those tools are useful they will convert their
> debian/copyright files to take advantage of those tools all by
> themselves.
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 02:13:20PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
> Perhaps this is where we're not quite seeing eye-to-eye. I know that
> machine readable copyright files would allow lintian checks. But what
> would those checks be, and what would be the point of them?
I believe there has been so di
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 03:35:13PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Files: share/www/script/json.js
> License: PD
> In the public domain.
>
> This file does not exist.
Yes, it seems the file is:
share/www/script/jso2.js
> The file NOTICE contains this hint:
>
> | This product includes software
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 03:47:39PM +0100, Romain Beauxis wrote:
> Le Sunday 22 March 2009 14:45:18 Noah Slater, vous avez écrit :
> > > Could you provide a use case or two to help clarify things? The main
> > > one I see is for an end user to look at a packages copyright file and
> > > say 'yes, I
Le Sunday 22 March 2009 14:45:18 Noah Slater, vous avez écrit :
> > Could you provide a use case or two to help clarify things? The main
> > one I see is for an end user to look at a packages copyright file and
> > say 'yes, I can use it for $foo', which is a case that's detracted from
> > in the p
* Noah Slater:
> If you're telling me that the FTP masters would be happy with blanket license
> statements for a package, what is stopping you from using the existing format
> to
> say something along the lines of:
>
> Files: *
> Copyright: Copyright 2008, Damien Katz
>Copyright 2008, J
On Sun, 22 Mar 2009, Noah Slater wrote:
> > I'm not quite clear as to why this is an advantage yet Currently, this
> > seems to have been designed to provide interfaces for future tools to
> > use, while not regarding whether or not people want those tools.
> >
> > Could you provide a use case or
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 01:45:18PM +, Noah Slater wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 11:42:29AM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
> > I'm not quite clear as to why this is an advantage yet Currently, this
> > seems to have been designed to provide interfaces for future tools to
> > use, while not regar
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 11:54:49AM +, Neil Williams wrote:
> Then reconsider the remark. The proposed format is more work for many
> overworked maintainers, it presents no clear gain for those maintainers,
> it overly complicates the file and file handling. There is no point
> arguing about the
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 11:42:29AM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
> I'm not quite clear as to why this is an advantage yet Currently, this
> seems to have been designed to provide interfaces for future tools to
> use, while not regarding whether or not people want those tools.
>
> Could you provide a
On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 12:16:10 +
Noah Slater wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 11:35:02AM +, Neil Williams wrote:
> > IMHO it is about not getting hung up on the process but considering the
> > reasoning behind the process. AFAICT, there is no good reason to
> > document every single copyrig
On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 12:56:06 +0100
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> First, let me apologize for my last mail in this thread, it had been a
> little too rude/harsh/direct. My fault, sorry. (We all should calm down,
> flaming won't help)
/me calms down too.
> On 11696 March 1977, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > J
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 11:35:02AM +, Neil Williams wrote:
> IMHO it is about not getting hung up on the process but considering the
> reasoning behind the process. AFAICT, there is no good reason to
> document every single copyright holder but there are very good reasons
> to document every ap
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 08:45:55PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Given that many people have already said that it is, perhaps this is the
> point where you should just accept that they're not lying to you and
> instead you're suffering from a failure of imagination?
>
> I know from personal experien
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 08:42:12PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Could you explain to me how the lack of those two things is a possible
> DFSG problem? I assume that this is based on the first, but that seems
> like quite a stretch to me. The same assurance, for what good there is in
> it, could b
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 08:13:54PM +1300, Andrew McMillan wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-03-22 at 03:34 +, Noah Slater wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 08:07:23PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > > NEW rejections are even stronger than an RC bug. Apart from questions of
> > > whether that's useful docu
First, let me apologize for my last mail in this thread, it had been a
little too rude/harsh/direct. My fault, sorry. (We all should calm down,
flaming won't help)
On 11696 March 1977, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Joerg Jaspert writes:
>> We require, and have seen nothing to convince us otherwise, that
On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 02:47:04 +
Noah Slater wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 03:58:34PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > Honestly, if you cant deal with listing the Authors/(C) holders - dont
> > maintain a package. It is not much work to list them. (It might be a lot
> > of work using the "new
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 02:47:04AM +, Noah Slater wrote:
> This has clear advantages for being able to post-process, check, search, and
> navigate copyright information using whatever tools the community decides
> would
> be profitable.
>
I'm not quite clear as to why this is an advantage ye
On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 02:53:51 +
Noah Slater wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 09:42:35AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Why do they have to? I know, the ftp team made it up. But there
> > is no reason in policy or in copyright law for such copying to
> > occur. But it would be nic
On Sun, 2009-03-22 at 03:34 +, Noah Slater wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 08:07:23PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > NEW rejections are even stronger than an RC bug. Apart from questions of
> > whether that's useful documentation for users, I have a hard time seeing
> > either of your reasons
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 12:49:12PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Jonas Meurer writes:
> > On 21/03/2009 Mike Hommey wrote:
> >> On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 03:58:34PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>
> >>> Honestly, if you cant deal with listing the Authors/(C) holders - dont
> >>> maintain a package. It
Noah Slater writes:
> I don't understand the disconnect here.
>
> A license check must, by definition, involve each file in the package.
>
> As re-quoted from the quote you previously quoted:
>
> "I don't see why it should be considered that much extra effort
> documenting the process."
Give
Noah Slater writes:
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 08:07:23PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> NEW rejections are even stronger than an RC bug. Apart from questions
>> of whether that's useful documentation for users, I have a hard time
>> seeing either of your reasons stated above as being RC-level bug
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 04:31:58AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le dimanche 22 mars 2009 à 02:58 +, Noah Slater a écrit :
> > Again, while the documentation of individual licenses may not be policy, it
> > is
> > certainly policy for each package to be thoroughly checked for licensing
> >
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 08:09:56PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > The legal details of copyright assignment are not important here. If the
> > package lists the copyright as belonging to the FSF, then it belongs to
> > the FSF. If it does not, then it does not.
>
> I don't mean to be excessively bl
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 08:07:23PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> NEW rejections are even stronger than an RC bug. Apart from questions of
> whether that's useful documentation for users, I have a hard time seeing
> either of your reasons stated above as being RC-level bugs.
You don't think that po
Le dimanche 22 mars 2009 à 02:58 +, Noah Slater a écrit :
> Again, while the documentation of individual licenses may not be policy, it is
> certainly policy for each package to be thoroughly checked for licensing
> issues.
> As this necessarily involves looking at each file, I don't see why i
1 - 100 of 203 matches
Mail list logo
