On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 08:07:23PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> NEW rejections are even stronger than an RC bug. Apart from questions of
> whether that's useful documentation for users, I have a hard time seeing
> either of your reasons stated above as being RC-level bugs.
You don't think that po
Noah Slater writes:
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 08:07:23PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> NEW rejections are even stronger than an RC bug. Apart from questions
>> of whether that's useful documentation for users, I have a hard time
>> seeing either of your reasons stated above as being RC-level bug
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 12:15:00PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Is the reason that you feel most licenses require preservation of the
> copyright notice and it's easier to enforce it uniformly for all copyright
> files? Is there some other larger reason why is this important for the
> project? (P
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 09:42:35AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Why do they have to? I know, the ftp team made it up. But there
> is no reason in policy or in copyright law for such copying to
> occur. But it would be nice to know why it is needed.
I can think of a few desirable reas
Noah Slater writes:
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 12:15:00PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Is the reason that you feel most licenses require preservation of the
>> copyright notice and it's easier to enforce it uniformly for all
>> copyright files? Is there some other larger reason why is this
>> im
Joerg Jaspert writes:
> We require, and have seen nothing to convince us otherwise, that Debian
> maintainers need to do the basic work of listing each copyright holder in
> debian/copyright, as seen in the source files and AUTHORS list or
> equivalent (if any).
Is this requirement being applied
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 10:29:35PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Is there actually packages that does not use debconf ?
The one I'm involved with is base-passwd; but it only doesn't use
debconf because I've been putting off dealing with figuring out how to
convert it over (since it ideally ought
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 03:04:32PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> Even the GPL tells you to. § 4. Conveying Verbatim Copies (which is then
> mentioned in the source/binary paragraphs):
> --88---
> You may convey verbatim copies of the Progr
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 02:57:34PM +0100, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> Allow me to disagree. While in common language "original" can be used in
> the sense of "initial" as your interpretation seems to suggest, this is
> clearly and consistently not the case in the context of copyright. In
> fact, "orig
Joerg Jaspert writes:
> We require, and have seen nothing to convince us otherwise, that Debian
> maintainers need to do the basic work of listing each copyright holder
> in debian/copyright, as seen in the source files and AUTHORS list or
> equivalent (if any).
So, the question being raised on
Le Saturday 21 March 2009 15:42:35 Manoj Srivastava, vous avez écrit :
> Now, it might be perfectly fine for the ftp team to impose such
> restrictions on packages, and create their own policy; but please at
> least say so, and do not hide being hand waving of either copyright law
> requ
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 04:25:36PM +0200, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> la, 2009-03-21 kello 15:04 +0100, Joerg Jaspert kirjoitti:
> > We require, and have seen nothing to convince us otherwise, that
> > Debian
> > maintainers need to do the basic work of listing each copyright holder in
> > debian/copyr
On Sat, Mar 21 2009, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
The real problem here is that FTP masters require the list of copyright
holders to be up-to-date each time the package goes through NEW.
Whatever justification exists for this requirement, I???m starting to find
it unacceptable. If a pa
la, 2009-03-21 kello 15:04 +0100, Joerg Jaspert kirjoitti:
> We require, and have seen nothing to convince us otherwise, that
> Debian
> maintainers need to do the basic work of listing each copyright holder in
> debian/copyright, as seen in the source files and AUTHORS list or
> equivalent (if any
On Sat, Mar 21 2009, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> Hi Manoj,
>
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> o) It should name the original authors -- which, in my view, is
>> distinct from every subsequent contributor. This can bea matter of
>> subjective interpretation, though.
>
> Allow me to disagree. W
On Sat, Mar 21 2009, Noah Slater wrote:
> I only maintain a small number of packages, but even then, I have
> regularly found files contained within those packages which were
> included for various reasons by upstream under a different license. In
> the case of planet-venus, I remove a not insign
>>> The real problem here is that FTP masters require the list of copyright
>>> holders to be up-to-date each time the package goes through NEW.
>>> Whatever justification exists for this requirement, I???m starting to find
>>> it unacceptable. If a package has to go through NEW, it takes about
>>
Hi Manoj,
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> o) It should name the original authors -- which, in my view, is
> distinct from every subsequent contributor. This can bea matter of
> subjective interpretation, though.
Allow me to disagree. While in common language "original" can be used in
the se
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 11:33:32PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Now, some of the objections you have heard is because of the
> hard line you have been taking in this discussion about looking for
> and adding copyright holders is not, as far as I can see, reflected in
> current polic
19 matches
Mail list logo
