Re: Has Copyright summarizing outlived its usefulness?

Hi, On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 12:34:24PM +0100, Gert Wollny wrote: > ... > Unless there is a legally binding reason to add individual copyrights > to d/copyright, I'd vote for only a summary statement that lists all > contributors for a package. I agree to the point that in *some* cases I dealt

Re: Has Copyright summarizing outlived its usefulness?

Am Samstag, den 16.12.2017, 13:20 +0100 schrieb Jonas Smedegaard: > > If it is "not worth [your] time" to cover _all_ sources for the > project you are maintaining then perhaps you should team up with > someone who does find it worthwhile to do that part of the packaging > maintenance - because

Re: Has Copyright summarizing outlived its usefulness?

Quoting Steve Robbins (2017-12-16 05:35:25) > Ben Finney writes: >> Simon McVittie writes: >>> On Wed, 13 Dec 2017 at 23:10:51 +1100, Ben Finney wrote: expecting to find “complete copyright holder information” such that we can be confident it *is*

Re: Has Copyright summarizing outlived its usefulness?

Ben Finney writes: > Simon McVittie writes: > > On Wed, 13 Dec 2017 at 23:10:51 +1100, Ben Finney wrote: > > > expecting to find “complete copyright holder information” such > > > that we can be confident it *is* complete, solely in the upstream source > > >

Re: Has Copyright summarizing outlived its usefulness?

Simon McVittie writes: > On Wed, 13 Dec 2017 at 23:10:51 +1100, Ben Finney wrote: > > expecting to find “complete copyright holder information” such > > that we can be confident it *is* complete, solely in the upstream source > > is a folly, in my experience. > > Given that, on

Re: Has Copyright summarizing outlived its usefulness?

Hi Steve, > > it does not seem a terribly logical defense that "it is been like that > > for some time." (So what? :p) > > That is one interpretation of what I wrote. We get the "but it's been like that for a while" reply to REJECTs fairly often, so apologies for jumping to that :) Best

Re: Has Copyright summarizing outlived its usefulness?

On Wed, 13 Dec 2017 at 23:10:51 +1100, Ben Finney wrote: > expecting to find “complete copyright holder information” such > that we can be confident it *is* complete, solely in the upstream source > is a folly, in my experience. Given that, on what basis can a user of the package gain value from

Re: Has Copyright summarizing outlived its usefulness?

Steve Robbins writes: > On Sunday, December 10, 2017 11:11:20 PM CST gregor herrmann wrote: > > My understanding is that a license without any information who puts > > the software under this license (i.e. who is the copyright holder > > who can grant these rights) is

Re: Has Copyright summarizing outlived its usefulness?

On Sunday, December 10, 2017 11:11:20 PM CST gregor herrmann wrote: > On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 12:44:52 -0600, Steve Robbins wrote: > > However, the consensus voiced in this thread (as was the case of the same > > in 2016) is that while license summarizing (which can include, if the > > license has

Re: Has Copyright summarizing outlived its usefulness?

On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 12:28:16AM -0600, Steve Robbins wrote: > So all I can present is that it was accepted for a long time and then > suddenly not accepted. Accepted or just not checked? -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: Has Copyright summarizing outlived its usefulness?

On Sunday, December 10, 2017 8:09:16 PM CST Chris Lamb wrote: > I would also point out that regardless of the merits of some particular > interpretation, if a perceived violation of it was potentially discovered, > it does not seem a terribly logical defense that "it is been like that > for some

Re: Has Copyright summarizing outlived its usefulness?

Excerpts from Ian Jackson's message of 2017-12-12 15:38:29 +: > The work of reviewing each source file, first by the maintainer, and > then by ftpmaster when auditing, would still have to be done, I think. > > Or do you think we can avoid both the maintainer and then ftpmaster > looking at

Re: Has Copyright summarizing outlived its usefulness?

Am 12.12.2017 um 21:00 schrieb Mattia Rizzolo: > On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 01:42:54AM +0100, Markus Koschany wrote: >> Why don't we add all DFSG-free licenses to /usr/share/common-licenses or >> /usr/share/free-licenses instead? It would save a lot of developer and >> maintenance time if we could

Re: Has Copyright summarizing outlived its usefulness?

On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 01:42:54AM +0100, Markus Koschany wrote: > Why don't we add all DFSG-free licenses to /usr/share/common-licenses or > /usr/share/free-licenses instead? It would save a lot of developer and > maintenance time if we could just reference those licenses on a standard > Debian

Re: Has Copyright summarizing outlived its usefulness?

in my language, if you see what I mean. If that's possible. Steve Langasek writes ("Re: Has Copyright summarizing outlived its usefulness?"): > On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 05:28:12PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > > From what I've seen of the ftp review process, the file-by-f

Re: Has Copyright summarizing outlived its usefulness?

On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 05:28:12PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > Simon McVittie writes ("Re: Has Copyright summarizing outlived its > usefulness?"): > > I've written about this before, for example in > > <https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2016/08/msg00181.html>

Re: Has Copyright summarizing outlived its usefulness?

On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 12:44:52 -0600, Steve Robbins wrote: > However, the consensus voiced in this thread (as was the case of the same in > 2016) is that while license summarizing (which can include, if the license > has > language such as Russ identified, also listing copyrights) is valuable,

Re: Has Copyright summarizing outlived its usefulness?

On Sunday, December 10, 2017 8:09:16 PM CST Chris Lamb wrote: > However, I just wanted to add that whilst I can understand the frustration > of your package being rejected after spending some time in NEW, it would > be unfair to characterise that as "leaving" or neglecting it. Attributing >

Re: Has Copyright summarizing outlived its usefulness?

Hi Steve, > It's a shame the FTP masters are not participating in the discussion. I apologise. I have been following reading this thread, but just not responding as I can't commit the time right now to seriously respond to any input of my own. However, I just wanted to add that whilst I can

Re: Has Copyright summarizing outlived its usefulness?

Hi Ian, As a preface to my comments: I am *only* complaining about collecting copyright notices. I agree that collecting together a comprehensive license statement(s) is necessary. The caveats of Russ Alberry [1] aside, these are two distinct tasks in my eyes. [1]

Re: Has Copyright summarizing outlived its usefulness?

Quoting Markus Koschany : Why don't we add all DFSG-free licenses to /usr/share/common-licenses or /usr/share/free-licenses instead? It would save a lot of developer and maintenance time ... IMHO using links and references is just common sense and reduces unnecessary make

Re: Has Copyright summarizing outlived its usefulness?

On 2017-12-08 01:42 +0100, Markus Koschany wrote: > > Why don't we add all DFSG-free licenses to /usr/share/common-licenses or > /usr/share/free-licenses instead? I would second this. It seems odd that we only have a small subset in common-licences so I often end up finding/copying in a copy to

Re: Has Copyright summarizing outlived its usefulness?

Am 30.11.2017 um 06:46 schrieb Steve Robbins: [...] > Has copyright summarizing outlived its usefulness for large sources? Why > shouldn't we have some way to say "Copyright by the Boost authors"? > I completely agree with your rationale and there is even more room for improvement because I

Re: Has Copyright summarizing outlived its usefulness?

Ian Jackson writes: > From what I've seen of the ftp review process, the file-by-file > information is invaluable to ftpmaster review. As in, the ftpmaster > review would probably be impractical without it. ftpmaster review > necessarily focuses on the contents

Re: Has Copyright summarizing outlived its usefulness?

Simon McVittie writes ("Re: Has Copyright summarizing outlived its usefulness?"): > I've written about this before, for example in > <https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2016/08/msg00181.html>, and I'd be > very glad to see an "official" response from

Re: Has Copyright summarizing outlived its usefulness?

On 2017-12-06 23:12:19 -0600 (-0600), Steve Robbins wrote: [...] > Perhaps we should deprecate debian/copyright and just create > debian/license instead! [...] Free software licenses are, ultimately, licenses of copyright and so while the filename may seem mildly confusing, it is not entirely

Re: Has Copyright summarizing outlived its usefulness?

On Thu, 07 Dec 2017 at 13:33:12 +0800, Boyuan Yang wrote: > Of course if the > file is under a different license (different from th license of whole > project) > or some authors had their names written inside source code *explicitly*(e.g., > in the comment), it must be listed out in a separate

Re: Has Copyright summarizing outlived its usefulness?

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 11:46:00PM -0600, Steve Robbins wrote: > On Tuesday, November 28, 2017 9:00:10 AM CST Chris Lamb wrote: > > Sorry for the rejection but "Copyright: See individual source files" > > unfortunatley does not meet the high standards we strive for within Debian. > > That is odd.

Re: Has Copyright summarizing outlived its usefulness?

Boyuan Yang <073p...@gmail.com> writes: > Howerver, what we, the distribution maintainers, really care is that > these files do not conflict with our guideline aka DFSG. In this > situation it is the license that matters, not copyright holders. For > large software like linux kernel or libboost,

Re: Has Copyright summarizing outlived its usefulness?

在 2017年12月6日星期三 CST 下午11:12:19，Steve Robbins 写道： > On Thursday, November 30, 2017 11:26:31 AM CST Simon McVittie wrote: > > On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 at 23:46:00 -0600, Steve Robbins wrote: > > > On Tuesday, November 28, 2017 9:00:10 AM CST Chris Lamb wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > Sorry for the

Re: Has Copyright summarizing outlived its usefulness?

On Thursday, November 30, 2017 11:26:31 AM CST Simon McVittie wrote: > On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 at 23:46:00 -0600, Steve Robbins wrote: > > On Tuesday, November 28, 2017 9:00:10 AM CST Chris Lamb wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > Sorry for the rejection but "Copyright: See individual source files" > > >

Re: Has Copyright summarizing outlived its usefulness?

On Thursday, 30 November 2017 11:26:31 CET Simon McVittie wrote: > For a large package, gathering the list of copyright holders from > the source into debian/copyright is clearly a lot of work. For what it's worth, the amount of work can be reduced using 'cme update dpkg- copyright' [1] (other

Re: Has Copyright summarizing outlived its usefulness?

On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 at 23:46:00 -0600, Steve Robbins wrote: > On Tuesday, November 28, 2017 9:00:10 AM CST Chris Lamb wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Sorry for the rejection but "Copyright: See individual source files" > > unfortunatley does not meet the high standards we strive for within Debian. > >