a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)
--
487201: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=487201
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
---BeginMessage---
Package: base-files
Severity: wishlist
Ximin Luo infini...@gmx.com writes:
At the cost of some complexity in code, we can eliminate a lot of
complexity in our data.
There is redundancy, yes. Is that what you're calling complexity? Or is
there some significant complexity in the data of the ‘debian/copyright’
file that you've got in
On 01/09/11 07:15, Ben Finney wrote:
Ximin Luo infini...@gmx.com writes:
At the cost of some complexity in code, we can eliminate a lot of
complexity in our data.
There is redundancy, yes. Is that what you're calling complexity? Or is
there some significant complexity in the data of the
Le Thu, Sep 01, 2011 at 09:46:32AM +0100, Ximin Luo a écrit :
That would be really really ugly pointless code and I'm not going to do that.
Much easier to cp $LICENSE and cat $LICENSE.
Hi all,
how about a repository of ready-made stand-alone license paragraphs ? This
could be easily set up
On Thu, 01 Sep 2011 at 18:01:42 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
how about a repository of ready-made stand-alone license paragraphs ?
Perhaps, but be careful with that sort of thing: it may *look* like your
package's license, but is it actually the same text?
For a long named license like the
On 31/08/11 02:57, Russ Allbery wrote:
Ximin Luo infini...@gmx.com writes:
On 29/08/11 17:48, Russ Allbery wrote:
The project decided to say that our packages are intended for use on a
Debian system with the essential Debian packages installed and hence
not duplicate licenses that are in
Ximin Luo infini...@gmx.com writes:
OK, thanks for clarifying. I take it then that should implies not
necessary in this policy quote:
A copy of the file which will be installed in
/usr/share/doc/package/copyright should be in debian/copyright in the
source package.
should is documented at
On 31/08/11 21:49, Russ Allbery wrote:
Ximin Luo infini...@gmx.com writes:
OK, thanks for clarifying. I take it then that should implies not
necessary in this policy quote:
A copy of the file which will be installed in
/usr/share/doc/package/copyright should be in debian/copyright in the
Ximin Luo infini...@gmx.com writes:
At the cost of some complexity in code, we can eliminate a lot of
complexity in our data.
Ther is redundancy, yes. Is that what you're calling complexity? Or is
there some significant complexity in the ‘debian/copyright’ file that
you've got in mind?
With
On 29/08/11 17:48, Russ Allbery wrote:
Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com writes:
Allowing debian/copyright to rely on files _other_ than the common
licenses in base-files would be a larger and different change, so
off-topic for this bug. Unless done carefully, I don't think it's a
good
On Sunday, August 28, 2011, Ximin Luo infini...@gmx.com wrote:
On 28/08/11 02:33, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 02:00:33AM +0100, Ximin Luo wrote:
If you were to write a program that could report the copyright status of
every single file on the system, it would be weird if you
On 29/08/11 09:20, PJ Weisberg wrote:
On Sunday, August 28, 2011, Ximin Luo infini...@gmx.com wrote:
On 28/08/11 02:33, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 02:00:33AM +0100, Ximin Luo wrote:
If you were to write a program that could report the copyright status of
every single file
Hi,
Ximin Luo wrote:
I don't think disk space is an issue these days
I think that's the real point of disagreement here, for what it's
worth.
common-licenses is part of base-files, which is included on every
Debian installation. Some do need to be small.
(No opinion on whether the MPL
Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com writes:
Allowing debian/copyright to rely on files _other_ than the common
licenses in base-files would be a larger and different change, so
off-topic for this bug. Unless done carefully, I don't think it's a
good idea.
It's important to remember that
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 11:36:45AM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Allowing debian/copyright to rely on files _other_ than the common
licenses in base-files would be a larger and different change, so
off-topic for this bug. Unless done carefully, I don't think it's a
good idea.
And FWIW, since
On 28/08/11 02:33, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 02:00:33AM +0100, Ximin Luo wrote:
Thanks for the explanation; I didn't find this in the places I looked. Still,
the fact that the right way takes much more effort than the multitude of
wrong ways is not a good thing.
This is
Ximin Luo infini...@gmx.com writes:
I've been trying to package a bunch of mozilla extensions and getting
used to all the book-keeping that debian packages need, much of which is
copyright. I read DEP-5 and have been working on getting my
debian/copyright files to conform to that standard.
On 27/08/11 20:35, Russ Allbery wrote:
Ximin Luo infini...@gmx.com writes:
I've been trying to package a bunch of mozilla extensions and getting
used to all the book-keeping that debian packages need, much of which is
copyright. I read DEP-5 and have been working on getting my
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 12:24:55AM +0100, Ximin Luo wrote:
You missed my point. Verbatim text in copyright may be mechanically
extractable, but not easily verifiable. It's hard in the general case to
verify that a license block called MPL actually contains the full
correct MPL text, both for
On 27/08/11 20:35, Russ Allbery wrote:
Ximin Luo infini...@gmx.com writes:
I've been trying to package a bunch of mozilla extensions and getting
used to all the book-keeping that debian packages need, much of which is
copyright. I read DEP-5 and have been working on getting my
On 28/08/11 01:06, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 12:24:55AM +0100, Ximin Luo wrote:
You missed my point. Verbatim text in copyright may be mechanically
extractable, but not easily verifiable. It's hard in the general case to
verify that a license block called MPL actually
. But I'm still finding Ian's argument at:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=487201#64
fairly persuasive.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject
at:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=487201#64
fairly persuasive.
Realistically, I don't think anyone is going to choose the MPL simply because
they see it in /usr/share/common-licenses. Also, it seems the anti-MPL stance
is just from a few people, rather than the Debian project
On 28/08/11 02:00, Ximin Luo wrote:
If you were to write a program that could report the copyright status of every
single file on the system, it would be weird if you showed a slightly
different
GPL3 for different files. Even if you parsed a license text to a canonical
form, I doubt this
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 02:00:33AM +0100, Ximin Luo wrote:
Thanks for the explanation; I didn't find this in the places I looked. Still,
the fact that the right way takes much more effort than the multitude of
wrong ways is not a good thing.
This is often true of both life and software. The
Le Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 02:19:27PM +0100, Ximin Luo a écrit :
I read DEP-5 and have been working on getting my debian/copyright files to
conform to that standard. However, one major annoyance is the inclusion of
verbatim licenses, in particular MPL-1.1.
The correct way (according to a
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes:
I recently did a survey of both licenses already listed in
common-licenses and ones proposed for common-licenses using a Perl
script that's now in the debian-policy Git repository. The result was
that the MPL version 1.1 was used by 654 binary packages in
On 10.06.2010 21:45, Russ Allbery wrote:
I recently did a survey of both licenses already listed in common-licenses
and ones proposed for common-licenses using a Perl script that's now in
the debian-policy Git repository. The result was that the MPL version 1.1
was used by 654 binary packages
Giacomo A. Catenazzi c...@debian.org writes:
The common-licenses was done (IIRC) to save disk space, so to use such
criteria, I would count only packages with priority = standard, or a
proof that most systems have the verbatim license installed many times).
That's roughly the sort of criteria
Ian Jackson i...@davenant.greenend.org.uk writes:
Russ Allbery writes (Bug#487201: MPL-license):
By pure numbers, that's not a sufficient number of packages to warrant
inclusion in common-licenses according to the criteria previously
discussed here. (I think it falls short by hundreds.)
I
Russ Allbery writes (Bug#487201: MPL-license):
By pure numbers, that's not a sufficient number of packages to warrant
inclusion in common-licenses according to the criteria previously
discussed here. (I think it falls short by hundreds.)
I don't think pure numbers is the only thing we should
The list of packages with full text of MPL-license:
agsync: /usr/share/doc/agsync/MPL-1.1.txt.gz
alexandria: /usr/share/doc/alexandria/MPL-1.1.txt.gz
iceape: /usr/share/doc/iceape/MPL.gz
iceape-browser: /usr/share/doc/iceape-browser/MPL.gz
iceape-calendar: /usr/share/doc/iceape-calendar/MPL.gz
On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 11:39:36AM +0400, Dmitry E. Oboukhov [EMAIL
PROTECTED] wrote:
The list of packages with full text of MPL-license:
If you filter out packages from the same source, that leaves:
agsync: /usr/share/doc/agsync/MPL-1.1.txt.gz
alexandria:
On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 09:55:32AM +0200, Mike Hommey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 11:39:36AM +0400, Dmitry E. Oboukhov [EMAIL
PROTECTED] wrote:
The list of packages with full text of MPL-license:
If you filter out packages from the same source, that leaves:
agsync:
MH The list of packages with full text of MPL-license:
MH If you filter out packages from the same source, that leaves:
MH agsync: /usr/share/doc/agsync/MPL-1.1.txt.gz
MH alexandria: /usr/share/doc/alexandria/MPL-1.1.txt.gz
MH iceape: /usr/share/doc/iceape/MPL.gz
MH iceowl:
Dmitry E. Oboukhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The list of packages with full text of MPL-license:
Thank you for doing this search.
By pure numbers, that's not a sufficient number of packages to warrant
inclusion in common-licenses according to the criteria previously
discussed here. (I think
On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 10:42:12AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Dmitry E. Oboukhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The list of packages with full text of MPL-license:
Thank you for doing this search.
By pure numbers, that's not a sufficient number of packages to warrant
inclusion in
On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 10:42:12AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Dmitry E. Oboukhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
(Incidentally, right now the iceweasel package doesn't include the MPL in
debian/copyright, but instead in a separate file next to debian/copyright,
which surprised me. That's actually
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08-07-2008 14:42, Russ Allbery wrote:
[...]
By pure numbers, that's not a sufficient number of packages to warrant
inclusion in common-licenses according to the criteria previously
discussed here. (I think it falls short by hundreds.)
[...]
On 11440 March 1977, Russ Allbery wrote:
By pure numbers, that's not a sufficient number of packages to warrant
inclusion in common-licenses according to the criteria previously
discussed here. (I think it falls short by hundreds.)
From experience in NEW the MPL is unfortunately used often
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
reassign 487201 debian-policy
Bug#487201: MPL-license
Bug reassigned from package `base-files' to `debian-policy'.
thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator
41 matches
Mail list logo
