On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 11:39:36AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 01:42:41PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Not sure if this point has been raised already:
If Debian use an own format rather than e.g. SPDX then we might
easier be able to deal with potential disagreements
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 08:00:49AM +, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> On 2010-08-12, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> > * Various things are easier if debian/copyright can be parsed and
> > interpreted by software, rather than being free-form text. For
> > example, answering questions like "what stuff is GPL
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 01:42:41PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Not sure if this point has been raised already:
> If Debian use an own format rather than e.g. SPDX then we might
> easier be able to deal with potential disagreements on licensing
> interpretations.
> Debian has different opinio
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 02:32:39PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 05:43:36PM +1200, Lars Wirzenius a écrit :
The SPDX people are collaboration with other projects, including
Fedora, on this right now. Steve and I discussed it and he'll join
the SPDX mailing list to repre
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 01:47:42PM -0700, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > On to, 2010-08-12 at 14:59 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> >> On 08/12/2010 02:45 PM, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> >> - Migrating all packages to the new format is an insane task which
> >> would take a *long* time and a lot of work.
Le Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 08:59:11PM -0500, Peter Samuelson a écrit :
>
> [Lars Wirzenius]
> > * a "Comment" field would be good
> > * license shortnames/keywords: the set of keywords probably needs work,
> > and hopefully can be compatible with what other projects use; the
> > current thread on
Le Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 05:43:36PM +1200, Lars Wirzenius a écrit :
>
> The SPDX people are collaboration with other projects, including Fedora,
> on this right now. Steve and I discussed it and he'll join the SPDX
> mailing list to represent us, and will relay any concerns and updates.
> (I don't
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 02:07:23PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 05:23:06PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
But really If you believe it is enough to state in debian/control
that the work is GPLv2, then that is just as possible using DEB5,
with the following statement:
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 11:19:13AM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> Also it should be possible to say something like "this package is licensed
> under
> license FOO, but with the following exceptions" - and then add a field which
> takes a longish text with the exceptions.
As Jonas stated, you can do
One more piece of meta:
We the drivers are now using the wiki page[0] to track outstanding
issues, in the interest of transparency. We'll be updating it as we go
along.
Further, in order to avoid having everything discussed at the same time,
I think it would be good to discuss one or two things a
On pe, 2010-08-13 at 17:11 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I would read "approval" in this context as approval by all the people who
> are interested in using something like DEP-5. In other words, consensus
> that, should one want to do this sort of thing, this is the way in which
> we're going to do
[Lars Wirzenius]
> * a "Comment" field would be good
> * license shortnames/keywords: the set of keywords probably needs work,
> and hopefully can be compatible with what other projects use; the
> current thread on the meaning of "public domain" is part of this
> * file globbing syntax
> * cla
Peter Samuelson writes:
> But if you start talking about "when it's time to approve it" on
> debian-project, the comparison breaks down. Why does DEP-5 need to be
> "approved"? And by whom? Nobody had to discuss and "approve"
> debhelper. Because it's optional. Because nobody is forced to us
[Lars Wirzenius]
> * Quite a number of packages already use some variant of the DEP-5
> format. There's no goal to make using it mandatory, however.
> (Compare with debhelper: almost all packages use it, but it's
> entirely optional.)
and then you say
> If we build DEP-5 outside the normal
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 05:23:06PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> But really If you believe it is enough to state in debian/control
> that the work is GPLv2, then that is just as possible using DEB5,
> with the following statement:
> Copyright: John Doe
> License: GPL-2
> Verbatim license from
On 2010-08-13, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> Here's a quick-and-dirty conversion to DEP-5, which took about an hour
> to do, using regular expression search&replace, the vi "." command, plus
> manual editing:
I'm not talking about doing conversion. I'm talking about building from
scratch.
I get quite
On pe, 2010-08-13 at 11:39 -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> However, there is a big, big problem with DEP-5, and it is named
> /usr/share/doc/chromium-browser/copyright. It is 1.3 mb in size (out of
> a 25 mb package), and completely unreadable and unusable. It appears to
> be machine generated, and is fu
On pe, 2010-08-13 at 08:04 +, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> On 2010-08-13, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> > On pe, 2010-08-13 at 09:08 +1000, Craig Small wrote:
> >> I tried to use it once on one program and just ditched it. It only made
> >> it more difficult for me and for anyone who read it.
> >
> > That
On pe, 2010-08-13 at 08:00 +, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> On 2010-08-12, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> > * Various things are easier if debian/copyright can be parsed and
> > interpreted by software, rather than being free-form text. For
> > example, answering questions like "what stuff is GPLv2 only,
Craig Small writes:
> On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 12:09:44PM +1200, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
>> Files: *
>> Copyright: 2005-2006, Joe
>>2006, Fred
> That means all files Fred worked on in 2006 and all files Joe worked on
> in 2005 and 2006? You'll get yourself tangled up into some horrible
Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> A few comments:
> - Personally I find the format unnecessarily complicated and much more
> annoying
> to use than writing a normal debian/copyright file, especially for complicated
> cases.
Just as a data point in the other direction, as a maintainer of several
packages tha
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I found that surprising; perhaps I have forgotten a lot about
> this proposal. So, if I understand this correctly, this proposal is to
> come up with some way of creating a standard format for copyrights that
> is not meant to be universal (since lacunae that
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 07:47:18AM -0700, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Fri, Aug 13 2010, Mark Brown wrote:
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 05:10:11PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010, Craig Small wrote:
> What are these benefits?
The major important bits are that people who are basin
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 04:02:12PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 02:13:35PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
>> In order to truly deliver on this we'd need the entire distro to be
>> converted to DEP5 format but elsewhere in the thread it was stated that
>> this is not a goal
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 09:08:07 +1000, Craig Small wrote:
> > You're not required to use it. If you want to improve the format, please
> > make concrete proposals, or at least explain why it is complicated and
> I actually second Bernd's comments. It seems uneccessarily complex and
> so very much ha
On Fri, Aug 13 2010, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 05:10:11PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Aug 2010, Craig Small wrote:
>
>> > What are these benefits?
>
>> The major important bits are that people who are basing distributions
>> on Debian or are using Debian in the ente
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 02:13:35PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 05:10:11PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010, Craig Small wrote:
> What are these benefits?
The major important bits are that people who are basing distributions
on Debian or are using Debian
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 05:10:11PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Aug 2010, Craig Small wrote:
> > What are these benefits?
> The major important bits are that people who are basing distributions
> on Debian or are using Debian in the enterprise or embedded
> environments can more easil
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 11:19:13AM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
On 08/13/2010 01:08 AM, Craig Small wrote:
My suggestions:
* Split out the authors and the copyright dates into one chunk.
The fact that fileA is copyright 2005 Joe and fileB is copyright
2006 Fred and then fileC is copy
On 08/13/2010 01:08 AM, Craig Small wrote:
> My suggestions:
> * Split out the authors and the copyright dates into one chunk. The
> fact that fileA is copyright 2005 Joe and fileB is copyright 2006
> Fred and then fileC is copyright 2006 both of this is completely
> irrelevant for
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 05:10:11PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
I hope eventually that you'll be able to just run a tool on a source
package, get a debian/copyright out of it, and maybe look at a few
files which are questionable, then have it be kept automatically
updated.
CDBS supports semi-a
On 2010-08-13, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> On pe, 2010-08-13 at 09:08 +1000, Craig Small wrote:
>> I tried to use it once on one program and just ditched it. It only made
>> it more difficult for me and for anyone who read it.
>
> That would indicate there is a bug in the DEP-5 spec. It is, in my very
On 2010-08-12, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> * Various things are easier if debian/copyright can be parsed and
> interpreted by software, rather than being free-form text. For
> example, answering questions like "what stuff is GPLv2 only,
> and therefore incompatible with GPLv3?".
This is quite u
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 12:09:44PM +1200, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> On pe, 2010-08-13 at 09:08 +1000, Craig Small wrote:
> That would indicate there is a bug in the DEP-5 spec. It is, in my very
> non-humble opinion, not acceptable for DEP-5 to make it harder to
> maintain debian/copyright in DEP-5 f
On pe, 2010-08-13 at 09:57 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> The “paragraph” format that is popular in Debian control files does not allow
> the use of free comments. [- - -]
...
> I propose to use a simpler format, that is trivial to parse:
Having debian/copyright use the same file format as debian/
On to, 2010-08-12 at 10:32 -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> It would also be nice to take a hard look at the SPDX format,[1] adopt
> any good ideas from it, and try to make sure that the resultant DEP-5
> can be translated into SPDX, and vice versa. [There's no reason for us
> to do all of the hard wo
Charles Plessy writes:
> It is necessary to let people add comments in debian/copyright. Some
> people have asked for free-form comments and I think that it is a valid
> request.
> Enclosing comments in a DEP-5 fields give extra work since for each line
> a space needs to be added, with a dot if
Le Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 12:45:30AM +1200, Lars Wirzenius a écrit :
> The effort to get a machine-readable format for debian/copyright
> has been going on for some years now. I think it is time to get it
> done. To help with this, I am joining Steve Langasek as a driver
> for DEP-5[0].
Dear Lars,
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010, Craig Small wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 01:27:12AM +1200, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> > More importantly, making debian/copyright be machine parseable
> > provides some immediate benefits, without having to wait for a
> > solution to the big, difficult problem.
>
> What are th
On pe, 2010-08-13 at 09:08 +1000, Craig Small wrote:
> I tried to use it once on one program and just ditched it. It only made
> it more difficult for me and for anyone who read it.
That would indicate there is a bug in the DEP-5 spec. It is, in my very
non-humble opinion, not acceptable for DEP-5
Craig Small writes:
> I actually second Bernd's comments. It seems uneccessarily complex and
> so very much harder to read. It's especially insane if you have multiple
> authors and where the license stays the same but the copyright years
> change.
I combine all the copyright notices into one b
Dear project,
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 02:59:15PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> On 08/12/2010 02:45 PM, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> > It would be good to have DEP-5 done quite early in the squeeze+1
> > development cycle to give as much time as possible for adoption.
[...]
> So my opinion in short wo
Bernd Zeimetz writes:
> True, but to gain some benefit you'd need a lot of DEP-5'ed packages to
> have something useful to work on. Are there any statistics about the
> number of packages which use DEP5 in d/copyright?
I don't have any hard statistics, but I think the number is already well
over
Lars Wirzenius writes:
> The current outstanding issues I am aware of:
> * a "Comment" field would be good
> * license shortnames/keywords: the set of keywords probably needs work,
> and hopefully can be compatible with what other projects use; the
> current thread on the meaning of "public
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 01:27:12AM +1200, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> On to, 2010-08-12 at 14:59 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> > - Personally I find the format unnecessarily complicated and much more
> > annoying
> > to use than writing a normal debian/copyright file, especially for
> > complicated
>
On Thu, Aug 12 2010, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> On to, 2010-08-12 at 14:59 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>> On 08/12/2010 02:45 PM, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
>> - Migrating all packages to the new format is an insane task which
>> would take a *long* time and a lot of work.
> There is no goal to migrat
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> The current outstanding issues I am aware of:
[...]
> If there's more issues, please raise them.
It would also be nice to take a hard look at the SPDX format,[1] adopt
any good ideas from it, and try to make sure that the resultant DEP-5
can be transl
* Lars Wirzenius , 2010-08-13, 00:45:
The current outstanding issues I am aware of:
* a "Comment" field would be good
* license shortnames/keywords: the set of keywords probably needs work,
and hopefully can be compatible with what other projects use; the
current thread on the meaning of "publ
On 12/08/2010 14:59, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> - Instead of writing such files (and keeping them updated), we should put more
> energy into doing this task automatically. There are various tools to analyze
> licenses automatically, for example from OpenLogic (commercial unfortunately)
> or
> http://f
On 12.08.2010 16:28, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
On 08/12/2010 03:27 PM, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
On to, 2010-08-12 at 14:59 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
On 08/12/2010 02:45 PM, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> It would be good to have DEP-5 done quite early in the squeeze+1
development cycle to give as much t
On 08/12/2010 03:27 PM, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> On to, 2010-08-12 at 14:59 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>> On 08/12/2010 02:45 PM, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
>> > It would be good to have DEP-5 done quite early in the squeeze+1
>>> development cycle to give as much time as possible for adoption.
>>
>> A
Le Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 12:45:30AM +1200, Lars Wirzenius a écrit :
>
> It was just suggested we move the DEP-5 discussions off debian-project.
> I think that would be a mistake. This is something that affects the
> project as a whole, and should therefore be easy for the whole project
> to follow,
On to, 2010-08-12 at 14:59 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> On 08/12/2010 02:45 PM, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> > It would be good to have DEP-5 done quite early in the squeeze+1
> > development cycle to give as much time as possible for adoption.
>
> A few comments:
> - Personally I find the format unn
On 08/12/2010 02:45 PM, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> It would be good to have DEP-5 done quite early in the squeeze+1
> development cycle to give as much time as possible for adoption.
A few comments:
- Personally I find the format unnecessarily complicated and much more annoying
to use than writing a
The effort to get a machine-readable format for debian/copyright
has been going on for some years now. I think it is time to get it
done. To help with this, I am joining Steve Langasek as a driver
for DEP-5[0].
[0] http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/
The story so far, in a very rough summary:
55 matches
Mail list logo
