On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 04:51:51PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> I'm not sure why Jonathan thinks his patch is a strawman. It addresses
> the main issue of this bug. I don't think the explanation of what an
> upstream contact is needs to be relegated to a footnote. So I am
> seeking seconds for t
Sean Whitton writes:
> I'm not sure why Jonathan thinks his patch is a strawman. It addresses
> the main issue of this bug. I don't think the explanation of what an
> upstream contact is needs to be relegated to a footnote. So I am
> seeking seconds for the following patch, which uses Jonathan
I would like to see this bug fixed because there can be no doubt that
the 'original' in "original authors" is ambiguous.
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 07:50:41PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Here's a strawman illustrating what I think the sentence meant to say.
> [...]
I'm not sure why Jonathan thin
Bill Allombert wrote:
> Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Jonathan Nieder writes:
> > > Charles Plessy wrote:
> > >> My personal opinion is that it is best to focus the Debian copyright file
> > >> on the goal of respecting licenses and the copyright law, and to leave
> > >> to the upstream documentation the
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 01:50:32AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Jonathan Nieder writes:
> > Charles Plessy wrote:
>
> >> My personal opinion is that it is best to focus the Debian copyright file
> >> on the goal of respecting licenses and the copyright law, and to leave
> >> to the upstream docum
Bart Martens wrote:
> Some readers may argue that an "upstream contact" may not be an "author" if
> he/she maintains the upstream software only by accepting patches created by
> others.
If so, won't that be a problem everywhere else in policy that refers
to upstream authors? For example in secti
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 07:50:41PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Here's a strawman illustrating what I think the sentence meant to say.
>
> diff --git i/policy.sgml w/policy.sgml
> index 52dbb26a..adb0c1c4 100644
> --- i/policy.sgml
> +++ w/policy.sgml
> @@ -9873,8 +9873,15 @@ END-INFO-DIR-ENTRY
Russ Allbery wrote:
> Policy 12.5 says:
>
> In addition, the copyright file must say where the upstream sources
> (if any) were obtained, and should name the original authors.
>
> The last part is not at all clear. Prior to a recent conversation on
> debian-mentors, I had always assumed t
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Would one list bug-gnu-ut...@gnu.org? That's the most useful contact
> > point (and we have a copyright-format field for that), but it's not in any
> > real sense the "author."
>
> Sure it is --- it's the contact point for the
Hi Russ,
For completeness, since I was involved in the initial debate, here's my opinion
on this bug:
I would welcome the removal of "should name the original authors".
I have currently no strong opinion on the other side-aspects I've read in the
comments so far.
Regards,
Bart Martens
-
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 00:39:31 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Policy 12.5 says:
>
> In addition, the copyright file must say where the upstream sources
> (if any) were obtained, and should name the original authors.
>
> The last part is not at all clear. Prior to a recent conversation on
>
Russ Allbery wrote:
> Would one list bug-gnu-ut...@gnu.org? That's the most useful contact
> point (and we have a copyright-format field for that), but it's not in any
> real sense the "author."
Sure it is --- it's the contact point for the people who create the
code that goes into the upstream
Charles Plessy wrote:
> Nevertheless, listing the original authors does not give an accurate
> information about who currently develops a program, and who to contact.
If "original" means "upstream of Debian" (i.e., "where does this code
originate from?"), then it gives exactly that. As you might
Jonathan Nieder writes:
> Charles Plessy wrote:
>> My personal opinion is that it is best to focus the Debian copyright file
>> on the goal of respecting licenses and the copyright law, and to leave
>> to the upstream documentation the difficult task of stating who is author
>> and who is not.
>
Le Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 03:38:05AM -0500, Jonathan Nieder a écrit :
>
> Just like naming the location from which the upstream source code was
> downloaded is useful, giving contact information (at least a name,
> mailing list, or web forum) for the upstream maintainer is useful, no?
Hi,
the prob
Charles Plessy wrote:
> My personal opinion is that it is best to focus the Debian copyright file
> on the goal of respecting licenses and the copyright law, and to leave
> to the upstream documentation the difficult task of stating who is author
> and who is not.
Just like naming the location fr
Le Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 12:39:31AM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
>
> Policy 12.5 says:
>
> In addition, the copyright file must say where the upstream sources
> (if any) were obtained, and should name the original authors.
Dear all,
given that
1) New packages that do not name the orig
Package: debian-policy
Severity: normal
Policy 12.5 says:
In addition, the copyright file must say where the upstream sources
(if any) were obtained, and should name the original authors.
The last part is not at all clear. Prior to a recent conversation on
debian-mentors, I had always a
18 matches
Mail list logo
