Russ Allbery wrote:
> Joerg Jaspert writes:
>
>> Also, keep in mind what Mark wrote elsewhere. He asked the DPL to let
>> SPI get us some lawyers input on the question. Thats probably the best
>> course.
>
> Yes. I'm wholeheartedly in favor of this, and I think we should hold any
> resolution o
Bill Allombert writes:
> So we already allow packages to reference other packages for license
> informations.
With the important requirement that the referenced package that
contains the license information must also be installed on every
system where the referring package is installed (because
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 09:19:36PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > But we do distribute binaries in the debs - and debian/copyright is
> > not only for the source but also ends up in the deb.
> Actually, Policy does not make mandatory for the .deb file to contain
> a copyright file at all:
>
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 11:47:37AM +0100, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
> > 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 justificat
Rene Engelhard wrote:
Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
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 unaccepta
Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
> 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 unaccepta
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 12:55:58PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Well, the one thing that I think we need to clarify here is whether we
> need to list the licenses for files that aren't source code for what goes
> into the binary distribution, such as the build system. The files from
> Autoconf and
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 package has to go through NEW, it takes ab
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 12:55:58PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I think part of the problem right now is that people aren't sure what to
> expect and are feeling like this review is somewhat unpredictable. This
> is what I'm hoping to be able to help with by revising the Policy section.
> If we ca
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 12:29:37PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Noah Slater writes:
>
> > Having said that, I am thinking that fully documenting the license of
> > each file provides a handy way to ensure that developers are thoroughly
> > checking the package for licensing problems.
>
> Did you m
Joerg Jaspert writes:
> Also, keep in mind what Mark wrote elsewhere. He asked the DPL to let
> SPI get us some lawyers input on the question. Thats probably the best
> course.
Yes. I'm wholeheartedly in favor of this, and I think we should hold any
resolution of this discussion for the results
Noah Slater writes:
> Having said that, I am thinking that fully documenting the license of
> each file provides a handy way to ensure that developers are thoroughly
> checking the package for licensing problems.
Did you mean "copyright" here? No one is disputing the need to document
the licens
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 08:42:12PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Could you explain to me how the lack of those two things is a possible
> DFSG problem? I assume that this is based on the first, but that seems
> like quite a stretch to me. The same assurance, for what good there is in
> it, could b
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 08:13:54PM +1300, Andrew McMillan wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-03-22 at 03:34 +, Noah Slater wrote:
> > 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 docu
First, let me apologize for my last mail in this thread, it had been a
little too rude/harsh/direct. My fault, sorry. (We all should calm down,
flaming won't help)
On 11696 March 1977, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Joerg Jaspert writes:
>> We require, and have seen nothing to convince us otherwise, that
On Sun, 2009-03-22 at 03:34 +, Noah Slater wrote:
> 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
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 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
On Fri, Mar 20 2009, Noah Slater wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 03:55:30PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
>> That you actually felt stroing enough to type twice, which pissed me off.
>> See <20090320111658.gd7...@tumbolia.org> if you don't remember suggesting
>> to maintain a different package.
>
> W
On Fri, Mar 20 2009, Noah Slater wrote:
> No one is saying it isn't a chore.
>
> As a maintainer, it is your duty to make sure that everything you
> upload is DFSG free, which means checking every single file. As you
> have to do this anyway, it makes sense to record that information in
> debian/c
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 01:28:09AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 20 2009, Mike O'Connor wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Why is this list needed?
> >
> > Often the license requires it. For instance the BSD license says,
> > "Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright".
>
On Fri, Mar 20 2009, Mike O'Connor wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 12:58:14AM +0100, Josselin Mouette 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
38 matches
Mail list logo
