dicate 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
--- Begin Message ---
Package: base-files
Se
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 GP
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 u
On 01/09/11 07:15, Ben Finney wrote:
>
> Ximin Luo 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
Ximin Luo 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 mind?
> With p
Ximin Luo 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 pointers, it is
On 31/08/11 21:49, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Ximin Luo 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 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 the
On 31/08/11 02:57, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Ximin Luo 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 base-fi
Ximin Luo 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 base-files, which I think is a bit
>> of a hand-wave,
On 29/08/11 17:48, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Jonathan Nieder 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.
>
>
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, si
Jonathan Nieder 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 Debian has a basic
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 shoul
On 29/08/11 09:20, PJ Weisberg wrote:
> On Sunday, August 28, 2011, Ximin Luo 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 th
On Sunday, August 28, 2011, Ximin Luo 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 showed a
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.
>
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
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.
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
hat we actually have, not
> problems that we anticipate that we could have but that have not yet been
> encountered.
>
> The MPL 1.1, to be clear, does continue to have one of the better claims
> of any license that's been put forward for inclusion in common-licenses
> recently.
better claims
of any license that's been put forward for inclusion in common-licenses
recently. 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) <
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" actua
On 27/08/11 20:35, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Ximin Luo 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 fil
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
On 27/08/11 20:35, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Ximin Luo 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 fil
Ximin Luo 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. However, one ma
Package: base-files
Version: 6.5
Followup-For: Bug #487201
Hi, I'm going to re-open this discussion and present this argument from more
perspectives than simply "number of packages".
I've been trying to package a bunch of mozilla extensions and getting used to
all the book
Russ Allbery 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 the archive
"Giacomo A. Catenazzi" 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 that we'v
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 in
Ian Jackson 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
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
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 ofte
-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 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
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 i
"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 thi
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: /usr/s
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:
>
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: /usr/share/doc/alexandria/MPL-1
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
ice
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 administrato
43 matches
Mail list logo
