Re: Q: NEW process licence requirements

Chris Lamb writes ("Re: Q: NEW process licence requirements"): > [lots of things] Thank you, Chris, for this absolutely excellent reply. Ian.

Re: Q: NEW process licence requirements

On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 11:30:23AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > On Sun, Apr 1, 2018 at 6:11 AM, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > What is the big (legal) difference between distributing something > > from the Debian group on the Debian machine salsa.debian.org, and > > distributing the same from a different

Re: Q: NEW process licence requirements

On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 07:57:11AM +0200, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: > > > Like it or not, but there *is* a big difference in the project making > > > something available for the big wide world (which a public NEW would > > > be), or a user putting it somewhere readable for everyone even though >

Re: Q: NEW process licence requirements

Le dimanche, 1 avril 2018, 00.11:58 h CEST Adrian Bunk a écrit : > Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 11:03:00PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > > Like it or not, but there *is* a big difference in the project making > > something available for the big wide world (which a public NEW would > > be), or a user

Re: Q: NEW process licence requirements

On Sun, Apr 1, 2018 at 6:11 AM, Adrian Bunk wrote: > What is the big (legal) difference between distributing something > from the Debian group on the Debian machine salsa.debian.org, and > distributing the same from a different Debian machine? The big difference appears to be the Social Contract

Re: Q: NEW process licence requirements

On Mon, Apr 02, 2018 at 10:57:24AM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote: >... > The other, critical, factor nobody has raised is time. Why not > assume good faith here? After all, which is more likely - the FTP > team are sitting around doing nothing and happy/enjoying the current > state of affairs, or too

Re: Q: NEW process licence requirements

On Mon, Apr 02, 2018 at 04:11:40PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Sun, Apr 01, 2018 at 10:36:23PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > > If someone does go down the road, then any project creation on salsa > > would possibly end up needing to be vetted by an admin (or a new team > > doing this, or a

Re: Q: NEW process licence requirements

On Sun, Apr 01, 2018 at 10:36:23PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > On 14994 March 1977, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > Since Debian distributing whatever random people upload to salsa > > is fine for you, I fail to see the point why you would consider > > distributing what is in the DD-only NEW a huge

Re: Q: NEW process licence requirements

Hi Adrian, > > do we really want to a culture in Debian where it is acceptable to > > publically belittle others' efforts using such emotionally loaded > > words or in such a combatitive / adversarial manner? > > you omitted the relevant part from my email I'm sorry you feel misquoted but I

Re: Q: NEW process licence requirements

On 14994 March 1977, Adrian Bunk wrote: > Since Debian distributing whatever random people upload to salsa > is fine for you, I fail to see the point why you would consider > distributing what is in the DD-only NEW a huge problem. It is not fine. But I've chosen to not go down the road that

Re: Q: NEW process licence requirements

On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 11:03:00PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > On 14993 March 1977, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > As an example for a rule that does not make sense, recently a member of > > the ftp team stated on debian-devel that the contents of NEW cannot be > > made available to people outside

Re: Q: NEW process licence requirements

On 14993 March 1977, Adrian Bunk wrote: > As an example for a rule that does not make sense, recently a member of > the ftp team stated on debian-devel that the contents of NEW cannot be > made available to people outside the ftp team since it might not be > distributable, and that this is not

Re: Q: NEW process licence requirements

On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 09:44:45AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Adrian Bunk writes: > > > The ftp team has repeatedly stated that it is working as a team and > > that decisions are not arbitrary decisions by individual team members. > > > This implies that for tasks like NEW

Re: Q: NEW process licence requirements

Adrian Bunk writes: > The ftp team has repeatedly stated that it is working as a team and > that decisions are not arbitrary decisions by individual team members. > This implies that for tasks like NEW handling there exist guidelines > in some form, that might need some

Re: Q: NEW process licence requirements

On Sat, 2018-03-31 at 15:37 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > The ftp team is granted powers over the work of all people in Debian  > directly from the DPL, To be slightly picky here, and possibly veering a little off the topic, the FTP Masters are delegated. Any powers that the remainder of the team

Re: Q: NEW process licence requirements

On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 10:55:30PM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote: > Hi Adrian, Hi Chris, >... > I have always instinctively felt such things to be antithetical to the > spirit of Debian development so should only be applied in extreme > circumstances. With respect to the frustrations expressed here

Re: Q: NEW process licence requirements

Hi Adrian, > A constant source of frustration is the intransparent licence > checking process in NEW, and intransparency regarding what the > ftp team considers mandatory for debian/copyright. Thanks for your question. So, I won't specifically respond to any of the separate sub-issues in this