Re: Final updates for this Python Policy revision

[anatoly techtonik]

On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 12:41 AM, Christoph Egger
 wrote:
> anatoly techtonik schrieb:
>>
>> Questions like "Debian Python Policy is all about GPL. Do I have to
>> release my Python package under GPL?". Most people (as you clearly
>> expressed) don't care, so upstream maintainers would just avoid Debian
>> packaging and let it do by someone else.
>
>        CC-By-Sa as you have suggested is a copyleft license as well so why
> would one not ask "Do I need to publish my python stuff now under
> CC-By-Sa" if one isn't sure about GPL?

Because CC-By-Sa doesn't mention word "software" and doesn't try to
argue with common sense trying to tell that "software documentation is
software itself". I chose CC-By-Sa as a closest alternative to GPL,
but Debian Policies may permit non-copyleft licenses as well.

> And having read both licenses I
> fail to see where the CC license is easier to read (in the relevant
> legalcode) as the GPL

CC has authoritative human-readable summary that is just 1k long and
easy to spot. It is just what 95% of people need to answer their
questions. GPL doesn't have such summary, so you either need to study
17k lawyers spell by yourself or seek the truth from biased comments
on the web.

-- 
anatoly t.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Final updates for this Python Policy revision

[Piotr Ożarowski]

please move your discussion to private or -legal
-- 
Piotr Ożarowski Debian GNU/Linux Developer
www.ozarowski.pl  www.griffith.cc   www.debian.org
GPG Fingerprint: 1D2F A898 58DA AF62 1786 2DF7 AEF6 F1A2 A745 7645


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Final updates for this Python Policy revision

[anatoly techtonik]

Given that people are tired of discussing things they've already
decided for themselves I CC this to debian-legal.

On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Ben Finney  wrote:
> The Debian policy is software with source code: the DocBook source document.

It is not clear why GPL notice doesn't stay in the source then and
instead appear in "binary form", but it seems ok.

BTW, where is the link to Debian Python Policy source in
http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/python-policy/ ? Shouldn't
it be mentioned in documentation?

>> 1. What am I free to do with with GPL'ed policy text?
>
> View it, examine its source code, modify it, and/or redistribute it
> under the same license terms.

>From your words it sounds like I can do just anything about it -
remove authors, sign under my name and sell for a big money without
distributing source code. Is that right?

>> 2. Are you sure about that?
>
> Yes. The GPL grants those freedoms.

>> > What specific problems do you see from choosing the GPL for a work,
>> > and why should those problems concern us in this case?
>>
>> One specific problem is that nobody understands what do you mean when
>> releasing something that is not software under GPL.
>
> The Debian policy is digital information, therefore it is software (as
> opposed to hardware).
>
> Perhaps you mean “something that is not a program”.

I mean that "documentation for software" is not software
itself.Software can render documentation or process it. Documentation
can be printed and still remain documentation. Software is not.

>> It can simply be deemed invalid in court and usual copyright rules
>> apply. In this case it can be sought like the freedom authors choose
>> to express their opinions about what did they meant later. You do not
>> license for that.
>
> I don't know what would lead you to think the GPL would be deemed
> invalid for the Debian policy more than any other software work.

Considering your argument that policy source is DocBook and .html is
"compiled binary software" I am beaten. However, most people won't get
that without lengthy discussion.

>> I still have no idea why Policy authors have chosen GPL
>
> Perhaps, then, you should not assert they have chosen the GPL blindly.

I still can't see the reasons why they couldn't choose GPL blindly. At
the time when original author was forced to choose license there could
not be other choice. All others are just followed. Now there are many
more clear suitable licenses, that's why I ask. Maybe authors would
like to choose non-copyleft license at all?

> Now, in the absence of a specific problem with applying the GPL to the
> software work that is the Debian policy, I don't think there's any more
> need to call for changing it.

While nobody understands what does it all mean, let's leave it alone. =)

-- 
anatoly t.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Move GPL discussion elsewhere (was: Python Policy)

[W. Martin Borgert]

Quoting "anatoly techtonik" :

Given that people are tired of discussing things they've already
decided for themselves I CC this to debian-legal.


Addendum: Given that some Debian documents are released under the
terms of the GPL (e.g. our release notes), this discussion has only
little relation to Python. Please drop debian-python from it. TIA.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Python Bindings for MLT

[Jonathan Thomas]

Greetings!
I am the developer of OpenShot Video Editor (http://www.OpenShotVideo.com),
a Python video editor based on the MLT framework.  My goal is to get
OpenShot included in the official Debian packages.  But before OpenShot can
be included, I need to get the Python bindings for MLT included in Debian.
So, hopefully this mailing list is the right place to ask for help. =)

I have done my best to package the MLT Python bindings (which were generated
using Swig), and I have published to my own
PPA(hosted
on LaunchPad).  I am fairly certain that my build script needs to be
improved.  For example, I never could figure out how to copy the MLT Python
bindings to the /site-packages/ folder, so I created a postinst file...
which can't be the best way.  I am very new to Debian packaging, so please
forgive my ignorance.

Any advice on what I should do next would be appreciated. =)

Thanks in advance!
-Jonathan Thomas

[MBF] Handling python2.4 removal

[Luca Falavigna]

Squeze will release with Python 2.5 and Python 2.6, while Python 2.4 is
scheduled for removal when no packages will depend on it. When Python
2.6 will enter unstable, Python 2.4 will be no longer supported version
for module and extension building.

We're proposing a MBF for the following packages to ease transition,
a brief explanation for every class of package involved follows.



---
NEED CODE/PACKAGING CHANGES
---

These packages build-depend or depend on one of the package built on top
of python2.4 source, and will be uninstallable when those packages will
be removed from Sid and Squeeze.

SZALAY Attila 
   zorp

Debian/Ubuntu Zope Team 
   zope-common
   zope2.10
   zope2.11

Bjørn Hansen 
   balder2d

Ian Jackson 
   autopkgtest

Matthias Klose 
   python-extclass
   zope-common (U)

martin f. krafft 
   zope-common (U)

Rafael Laboissiere 
   plplot (U)

Andrea Mennucci 
   zope-common (U)

Jonas Meurer 
   zope-common (U)
   zope2.10 (U)
   zope2.11 (U)

Andrew Ross 
   plplot

Filippo Rusconi 
   mmass (U)

The Debichem Group 
   mmass

Fabio Tranchitella 
   zope-common (U)
   zope2.10 (U)
   zope2.11 (U)

Bernd Zeimetz 
   zope-common (U)
   zope2.10 (U)
   zope2.11 (U)



--
NEED A SOURCEFUL UPLOAD WITH NO CODE/PACKAGING CHANGES
--

In order to get rid of dependencies on python2.4 package, a no-change
sourceful upload should be enough in most cases for those packages.

Daniel Baumann 
   pywebdav (U)

Mathias Behrle 
   pywebdav (U)

Vincent Danjean 
   commit-tool

Debian/Ubuntu Zope Team 
   zc.buildout
   zconfig
   zodb
   zope.testing

Dirk Eddelbuettel 
   nwsclient

Matthias Klose 
   zope.testing (U)

Debian Tryton Maintainers 
   pywebdav

Brian Sutherland 
   zconfig (U)
   zodb (U)
   zope.testing (U)

Fabio Tranchitella 
   zc.buildout (U)
   zconfig (U)
   zodb (U)
   zope.testing (U)



-
NEED A BINNMU
-

These packages should be fixed with a binNMU.

Loic Dachary (OuoU) 
   pypoker-eval

Sebastien Bacher 
   gnome-python-extras

Michael Banck 
   opensync

Luciano Bello 
   libmimic

Pierre Chifflier 
   libcap-ng

Debian GNOME Maintainers 
   gnome-python-extras (U)

Debian Python Modules Team 
   pykcs11 (U)
   pyscard (U)

Sebastian Dröge 
   gstreamer0.10-rtsp (U)

Thomas Jollans 
   chatplus

Jonny Lamb 
   librra

Maintainers of GStreamer packages

   gstreamer0.10-rtsp (U)

A Mennucc1 
   xdelta3

Loic Minier 
   gnome-python-extras (U)
   rpm (U)

Josselin Mouette 
   gnome-python-extras (U)

Kari Pahula 
   crossfire

Sebastian Reichel 
   gstreamer0.10-rtsp

Ludovic Rousseau 
   pykcs11
   pyscard

David Smith 
   pykcs11 (U)

Jelmer Vernooij 
   subvertpy

Michal Čihař 
   rpm



--
PACKAGES TO BE REMOVED
--

These packages ship modules or extensions already provided by python2.5
or newer Python versions, so they should be not needed anymore, a RM
request will be filed. Maintainers of packages that build-depend or
depend on these should update their packages. This will be the subject
for a future MBF.

Debian Python Modules Team 
   celementtree
   ctypes (U)
   elementtree

Raphael Hertzog 
   celementtree (U)

Scott Kitterman 
   celementtree (U)

Torsten Marek 
   celementtree (U)
   elementtree (U)

Python Modules Packaging Team

   python-wsgiref (U)

Ganesan Rajagopal 
   ctypes

Noah Slater 
   python-wsgiref

Bernd Zeimetz 
   elementtree (U)



Regards,

-- 
Scott Kitterman & Luca Falavigna


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature