Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] node-babel_6.25.0+dfsg-13_amd64.changes REJECTED
Quoting Pirate Praveen (2017-10-24 05:43:48) > On ചൊവ്വ 10 ഒക്ടോബര് 2017 03:49 വൈകു, Pirate Praveen wrote: > > On ചൊവ്വ 10 ഒക്ടോബര് 2017 03:05 വൈകു, Pirate Praveen wrote: > >> Sorry about the whole discussion escalating to this level. > > > > Just add context, I was asked to add this to copyright file by another > > ftp master and it was not found by licensecheck. > > > > http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-javascript-devel/2017-August/020220.html > > > > and it was accepted subsequently before Chris brought up again. > > Just asked upstream about the license and my initial assumption about > these being under Apache license was correct > https://github.com/babel/babel/issues/6497 I am growing tired of your weird non-constructive parts of this conversation, Praveen: Please either respond(!) to Chris' points, or or if you insist on talking to yourself about different topic(s) then remove the Javascript mailinglist from that weird conversation. For others following along: Praveen contacted me on irc requesting advice on this email thread, and I believe we had a sensible conversation. In other words my remark here does not com out of thin air - I tried (albeit in a side-channel, by Praveens choice). - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private -- Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel
Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] node-babel_6.25.0+dfsg-13_amd64.changes REJECTED
On ചൊവ്വ 10 ഒക്ടോബര് 2017 03:49 വൈകു, Pirate Praveen wrote: > On ചൊവ്വ 10 ഒക്ടോബര് 2017 03:05 വൈകു, Pirate Praveen wrote: >> Sorry about the whole discussion escalating to this level. > > Just add context, I was asked to add this to copyright file by another > ftp master and it was not found by licensecheck. > > http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-javascript-devel/2017-August/020220.html > > and it was accepted subsequently before Chris brought up again. Just asked upstream about the license and my initial assumption about these being under Apache license was correct https://github.com/babel/babel/issues/6497 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel
Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] node-babel_6.25.0+dfsg-13_amd64.changes REJECTED
On ചൊവ്വ 10 ഒക്ടോബര് 2017 03:05 വൈകു, Pirate Praveen wrote: > Sorry about the whole discussion escalating to this level. Just add context, I was asked to add this to copyright file by another ftp master and it was not found by licensecheck. http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-javascript-devel/2017-August/020220.html and it was accepted subsequently before Chris brought up again. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel
Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] node-babel_6.25.0+dfsg-13_amd64.changes REJECTED
On ചൊവ്വ 10 ഒക്ടോബര് 2017 02:40 വൈകു, Pirate Praveen wrote: > I knew that much, hence I added the comment that author name is missing. > Now if there is a LICENSE file in a directory, won't it apply to all > files in that directory? Or should I just add Copyright: NONE? I was wrongly thinking traceur code was embedded in babel and hence I thought the LICENSE file applies to whole directory (which is often the case for tests). But that is not the case. Please reject the last uploads and I will remove the section from copyright file and make a new upload. Sorry about the whole discussion escalating to this level. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel
Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] node-babel_6.25.0+dfsg-13_amd64.changes REJECTED
On ചൊവ്വ 10 ഒക്ടോബര് 2017 02:35 വൈകു, Chris Lamb wrote: > But this is part of the license's documentation, not a statement about > the package itself. > It is part of the "How to apply the Apache License to your work" > boilerplate... > I knew that much, hence I added the comment that author name is missing. Now if there is a LICENSE file in a directory, won't it apply to all files in that directory? Or should I just add Copyright: NONE? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel
Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] node-babel_6.25.0+dfsg-13_amd64.changes REJECTED
> > This makes me worry we are still not in sync about what the problem is... […] > You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works > [] [name of copyright owner] > license to reproduce, prepare Derivative Works of, > patent, trademark, and But this is part of the license's documentation, not a statement about the package itself. - APPENDIX: How to apply the Apache License to your work. - - To apply the Apache License to your work, attach the following - boilerplate notice, with the fields enclosed by brackets "[]" - replaced with your own identifying information. (Don't include - the brackets!) The text should be enclosed in the appropriate - comment syntax for the file format. We also recommend that a - file or class name and description of purpose be included on the - same "printed page" as the copyright notice for easier - identification within third-party archives. - - Copyright [] [name of copyright owner] - - Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License"); - you may not use this file except in compliance with the License. - You may obtain a copy of the License at - - http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 - - Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software - distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS, - WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. - See the License for the specific language governing permissions and - limitations under the License. It is part of the "How to apply the Apache License to your work" boilerplate... Regards, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk `- -- Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel
Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] node-babel_6.25.0+dfsg-13_amd64.changes REJECTED
On ചൊവ്വ 10 ഒക്ടോബര് 2017 02:08 വൈകു, Chris Lamb wrote: > This makes me worry we are still not in sync about what the problem is... > > Ignore this package for now: if I, totally by accident, mispasted a line > into a debian/copyright file, the solution would be to remove such a line, > no? Not rework the package so that the attribution became true. > The output of licensecheck command, licensecheck -l0 --deb-machine -r packages/babel-preset-es2015/test/fixtures/traceur/LICENSE Format: https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/ Upstream-Name: FIXME Upstream-Contact: FIXME Source: FIXME Disclaimer: Autogenerated by licensecheck Files: packages/babel-preset-es2015/test/fixtures/traceur/LICENSE Copyright: License. Subject to the terms and conditions of You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works [] [name of copyright owner] license to reproduce, prepare Derivative Works of, patent, trademark, and License: Apache-2.0 FIXME Which was not copy pasted as is, I thought about the problem and modified those lines. I did try to find the copyright notice from the upstream project but that solution was not accepted either. I did not mis-paste it by accident. I manually added that comment that author name was missing because it did not look normal to me. I did not know not marking the presence of a LICENSE file in debian/copyright was the preferred solution. Are we not supposed to mark all copyright notices in debian/copyright? How is Expat license applying to these code better than my original copyright section which said these code are under Apache-2.0? I knew there was a problem, it was not a mistake, it was a conscious choice. The three choices I had was, 1. Add a comment that author name was missing, which was rejected 2. Try to find a the author name from project website, which was not also considered a solution. 3. I removed that file altogether as it was not used currently, now that was also not accepted. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel
Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] node-babel_6.25.0+dfsg-13_amd64.changes REJECTED
> > The obvious solution to me is to remove the accidental reference in > > debian/copyright, not remove the file which contains some meta-copyright > > message. > > If this was suggested early on, we did not have to go through this long > thread This makes me worry we are still not in sync about what the problem is... Ignore this package for now: if I, totally by accident, mispasted a line into a debian/copyright file, the solution would be to remove such a line, no? Not rework the package so that the attribution became true. Regards, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk `- -- Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel
Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] node-babel_6.25.0+dfsg-13_amd64.changes REJECTED
On ചൊവ്വ 10 ഒക്ടോബര് 2017 01:03 വൈകു, Chris Lamb wrote: > Pirate, > >> Now with those files removed from the source tarball, lets move on. >> Please see if the current uploads in NEW meets the criteria. > > Please try and refrain such emotionally-driven comments in future. I > hope it is clear I attempted to be friendly and reset the frame of this > discussion, but in my experience it rarely helps to lash out like this, > especially when asking someone to do something for you. I only intended to close this discussion and not meant to lash out at you. Sorry if you found it offensive. My only intention was to not stall every other package on this point. I only wanted to point out, I have responded to your concern by uploading a fixed version. >> I have suggested two possible solutions and you seem to be fixated on >> the semantics of the problem than a solution. > > I assure you I am not. Your solutions seemed to imply we were looking at > a different problem altogether and were furthermore retrograde and/or > detrimental to the packaging such as removing useful things such as tests, > etc. We are not running tests currently, so it does not affect the quality of the package. > The obvious solution to me is to remove the accidental reference in > debian/copyright, not remove the file which contains some meta-copyright > message. If this was suggested early on, we did not have to go through this long thread. I can add it back in future if we enable tests without the section in copyright file. Since the now removed directory has a LICENSE file different from the rest of the code, it did not look obvious to me. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel
Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] node-babel_6.25.0+dfsg-13_amd64.changes REJECTED
Pirate, > Now with those files removed from the source tarball, lets move on. > Please see if the current uploads in NEW meets the criteria. Please try and refrain such emotionally-driven comments in future. I hope it is clear I attempted to be friendly and reset the frame of this discussion, but in my experience it rarely helps to lash out like this, especially when asking someone to do something for you. > I have suggested two possible solutions and you seem to be fixated on > the semantics of the problem than a solution. I assure you I am not. Your solutions seemed to imply we were looking at a different problem altogether and were furthermore retrograde and/or detrimental to the packaging such as removing useful things such as tests, etc. The obvious solution to me is to remove the accidental reference in debian/copyright, not remove the file which contains some meta-copyright message. Regards, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk `- -- Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel
Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] node-babel_6.25.0+dfsg-13_amd64.changes REJECTED
On ചൊവ്വ 10 ഒക്ടോബര് 2017 12:31 വൈകു, Chris Lamb wrote: > No. > > Pirate, please read over the following extremely carefully before replying > as I would like to avoid either of us becoming frustrated by these repeated > failures at conversation. > > The situation, as I understand it, is as follows: > > a) You uploaded 6.25.0+dfsg-13 with a debian/copyright including the >following: > >11 Files: packages/babel-preset-es2015/test/fixtures/traceur/* >12 Copyright: [] [name of copyright owner] >13 License: Apache-2.0 >14 Comment: name of copyright holder is missing > > b) This "[] [name of copyright owner]" placeholder text comes >from the LICENSE file. > > c) The portion of the LICENSE file where it comes from is part of >the usual "How to apply this license to your own code." This is >what was meant by "meta statement" in my original REJECT. > > d) The statement in debian/copyright therefore has no meaning >whatsover, likely just a false positive from whatever tool you >are using to generate such files. > > e) (It is therefore totally irrelevant to this disuss whether the >tests are used, whether the package is "useful", whether its >packages in NEW or contrib depend on it, etc. You seem fixated >on this point.) I have suggested two possible solutions and you seem to be fixated on the semantics of the problem than a solution. Now with those files removed from the source tarball, lets move on. Please see if the current uploads in NEW meets the criteria. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel
Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] node-babel_6.25.0+dfsg-13_amd64.changes REJECTED
Hi, > > Where it is used is not material here > > There is a difference which missed to articulate in previous replies. If > it is an optional component like only used for tests, we can just get > rid of it without affecting the functionality. No. Pirate, please read over the following extremely carefully before replying as I would like to avoid either of us becoming frustrated by these repeated failures at conversation. The situation, as I understand it, is as follows: a) You uploaded 6.25.0+dfsg-13 with a debian/copyright including the following: 11 Files: packages/babel-preset-es2015/test/fixtures/traceur/* 12 Copyright: [] [name of copyright owner] 13 License: Apache-2.0 14 Comment: name of copyright holder is missing b) This "[] [name of copyright owner]" placeholder text comes from the LICENSE file. c) The portion of the LICENSE file where it comes from is part of the usual "How to apply this license to your own code." This is what was meant by "meta statement" in my original REJECT. d) The statement in debian/copyright therefore has no meaning whatsover, likely just a false positive from whatever tool you are using to generate such files. e) (It is therefore totally irrelevant to this disuss whether the tests are used, whether the package is "useful", whether its packages in NEW or contrib depend on it, etc. You seem fixated on this point.) Regards, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk `- -- Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel
Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] node-babel_6.25.0+dfsg-13_amd64.changes REJECTED
On ഞായര് 08 ഒക്ടോബര് 2017 08:54 വൈകു, Chris Lamb wrote: > Where it is used is not material here unless I am missing something > fundamental. There is a difference which missed to articulate in previous replies. If it is an optional component like only used for tests, we can just get rid of it without affecting the functionality. I have removed those file from orig tarball and reuploaded, please review. Many packages currently in contrib and NEW benefits from it. Also many packages currently being built with node-es6-module-transpiler (it is hard to maintain and bug prone) can also benefit from having a modern transpiler. reverse-depends -b node-es6-module-transpiler Reverse-Build-Depends = * acorn * node-es6-promise * node-estree-walker * node-magic-string * node-rollup-plugin-commonjs * node-rollup-plugin-json * node-rollup-plugin-replace * node-rollup-plugin-string * node-rollup-pluginutils * node-sourcemap-codec * node-vlq signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel
Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] node-babel_6.25.0+dfsg-13_amd64.changes REJECTED
Hi Pirate Praveen, We are talking different things. -Chris > On ഞായര് 08 ഒക്ടോബര് 2017 09:07 വൈകു, Chris Lamb wrote: > > Again, it makes no difference.. The text you quote is part of 'how do I > > apply this license' not a copyright statement in itself.. > > We are in this situation because the License file does not include the > name of copyright holder. I have added Google Inc as copyright holder > (from the github project address that hosts traceur project) and > re-uploaded. If that is also not okay, please suggest a solution that is > acceptable. > > Email had 1 attachment: > + signature.asc > 1k (application/pgp-signature) -- Chris Lamb chris-lamb.co.uk / @lolamby -- Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel
Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] node-babel_6.25.0+dfsg-13_amd64.changes REJECTED
On തിങ്കള് 09 ഒക്ടോബര് 2017 12:48 വൈകു, Chris Lamb wrote: > We are talking different things. What do you suggest as a way forward? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel
Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] node-babel_6.25.0+dfsg-13_amd64.changes REJECTED
On ഞായര് 08 ഒക്ടോബര് 2017 09:07 വൈകു, Chris Lamb wrote: > Again, it makes no difference.. The text you quote is part of 'how do I apply > this license' not a copyright statement in itself.. We are in this situation because the License file does not include the name of copyright holder. I have added Google Inc as copyright holder (from the github project address that hosts traceur project) and re-uploaded. If that is also not okay, please suggest a solution that is acceptable. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel
Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] node-babel_6.25.0+dfsg-13_amd64.changes REJECTED
Hi Pirate Praveen, Where it is used is not material here unless I am missing something fundamental. > On ഞായര് 08 ഒക്ടോബര് 2017 08:30 വൈകു, Chris Lamb wrote: > > > > > > 11 Files: packages/babel-preset-es2015/test/fixtures/traceur/* > > 12 Copyright: [] [name of copyright owner] > > 13 License: Apache-2.0 > > 14 Comment: name of copyright holder is missing > > > > Really? No it's not. This is a meta statement in a LICENSE text AFAICT. Are > > you > > generating these lines automatically or something? > > This is only used for tests, I could add copyright to google > (https://github.com/google/traceur-compiler) or remove these files. > > Email had 1 attachment: > + signature.asc > 1k (application/pgp-signature) -- Chris Lamb chris-lamb.co.uk / @lolamby -- Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel
Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] node-babel_6.25.0+dfsg-13_amd64.changes REJECTED
Hi Pirate Praveen, Again, it makes no difference.. The text you quote is part of 'how do I apply this license' not a copyright statement in itself.. > On ഞായര് 08 ഒക്ടോബര് 2017 08:54 വൈകു, Chris Lamb wrote: > > > > > > Hi Pirate Praveen, > > > > Where it is used is not material here unless I am missing something > > fundamental. > > I meant, these are not generated by me, its provided as fixtures, that > is used during test. > > I'm adding copyright to Google Inc as the traceur project is hosted at > https://github.com/google/ > > Even this https://github.com/google/traceur-compiler/blob/master/LICENSE > has just the license text. > > Email had 1 attachment: > + signature.asc > 1k (application/pgp-signature) -- Chris Lamb chris-lamb.co.uk / @lolamby -- Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel
Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] node-babel_6.25.0+dfsg-13_amd64.changes REJECTED
On ഞായര് 08 ഒക്ടോബര് 2017 08:54 വൈകു, Chris Lamb wrote: > > > Hi Pirate Praveen, > > Where it is used is not material here unless I am missing something > fundamental. I meant, these are not generated by me, its provided as fixtures, that is used during test. I'm adding copyright to Google Inc as the traceur project is hosted at https://github.com/google/ Even this https://github.com/google/traceur-compiler/blob/master/LICENSE has just the license text. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel
Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] node-babel_6.25.0+dfsg-13_amd64.changes REJECTED
On ഞായര് 08 ഒക്ടോബര് 2017 08:30 വൈകു, Chris Lamb wrote: > > > 11 Files: packages/babel-preset-es2015/test/fixtures/traceur/* > 12 Copyright: [] [name of copyright owner] > 13 License: Apache-2.0 > 14 Comment: name of copyright holder is missing > > Really? No it's not. This is a meta statement in a LICENSE text AFAICT. Are > you > generating these lines automatically or something? This is only used for tests, I could add copyright to google (https://github.com/google/traceur-compiler) or remove these files. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel