Charles Plessy wrote:
[If I remember correctly, the question below is whether the law in the U.S.A.
requires us to reproduce all copyright statements from the source files when
we
redistribute binary programs, or if this is only needed when the license
expliciterly asks so.]
I believe
[If I remember correctly, the question below is whether the law in the U.S.A.
requires us to reproduce all copyright statements from the source files when we
redistribute binary programs, or if this is only needed when the license
expliciterly asks so.]
Le Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 12:55:58PM -0700,
Russ Allbery wrote:
Joerg Jaspert jo...@debian.org 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
Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org writes:
On Thu, Mar 26 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
One intermediate way in which I could see this specification going into
Policy without it being required for anyone would be to add a
subsection of the copyright section that says you are not required to
On Thu, Mar 26 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org writes:
Not currently seems to imply that at some point it will be
mandatory at some point. I find that somewhat presumptuous, but
perhaps I am reading too much into the in this current time bit. I
On Tue, Mar 24 2009, Ben Finney wrote:
Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org writes:
On Tue, Mar 24 2009, Ben Finney wrote:
If the spec is being bruited under the understanding that
the flaws do not matter
Who's doing that? Of course the flaws matter.
So answering
Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org writes:
Not currently seems to imply that at some point it will be
mandatory at some point. I find that somewhat presumptuous, but
perhaps I am reading too much into the in this current time bit.
I think perhaps you are. I read it only as
Le Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 01:32:46AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
Generally, the forum for discussion development for Debian is the
debian-devel mailing list. If we are having to move to some other
forum, or wait around and not discuss this while something happens to a
DEP, I
Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org writes:
Not currently seems to imply that at some point it will be
mandatory at some point. I find that somewhat presumptuous, but
perhaps I am reading too much into the in this current time bit. I
would put it as this is a proposal. It is
ti, 2009-03-24 kello 17:50 -0500, Manoj Srivastava kirjoitti:
I am expressing my opinion now, on a mailing list devoted to
debian development. I have not been keeping up witht eh bureaucratic
rigmarole that seems to be being wrapped around discussions, not after
we got the notice
ke, 2009-03-25 kello 01:32 +, Noah Slater kirjoitti:
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 12:39:46AM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
I'm curious... What do you think *is* the Debian way of doing things
like this ?
Manoj's email strongly implied that a DEP was needless bureaucracy.
I'm hardly likely
On Wed, Mar 25 2009, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
ke, 2009-03-25 kello 01:32 +, Noah Slater kirjoitti:
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 12:39:46AM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
I'm curious... What do you think *is* the Debian way of doing things
like this ?
Manoj's email strongly implied that a DEP
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
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 09:00:34PM +0100, Arthur de Jong wrote:
On Sun, 2009-03-22 at 12:11 +, Noah Slater wrote:
Firmly in my mind is the cost/benefit of this extra effort. If we
succeed in integrating debian/copyright checks into lintian, or dpkg
and it's front-ends, it seems
Mike Hommey m...@glandium.org wrote:
Hi,
Who cares that file foo.c is licensed under GPL and bar.c under BSD?
People that want to take the source and use it elsewhere. These people
are obviously looking at the sources, and don't really need
debian/copyright information.
Let's add that if
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 07:37:48 +0100
Mike Hommey m...@glandium.org wrote:
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
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 09:18:41 +
Neil Williams codeh...@debian.org wrote:
There is nothing in debian/copyright to help with that decision (nor
should there be, before anyone suggests it, because that doesn't scale
either).
Actually, I'm reconsidering that a bit - separate copyright files
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 00:43:48 -0700
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote:
I have been reading this discussion a bit and I've been wondering what
use-case you actually have for machine-readable debian/copyright files.
This is quite different than having the *license terms* recorded in a
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 unacceptable. If a package
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
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 10:38:47AM +, Neil Williams wrote:
I'm still not convinced that machine-parseable formats are genuinely
useful or maintainable and I feel that machine-parseable
requirements inevitably impair human readability of copyright files.
That's not a win, AFAICT.
Don't use
Neil Williams codeh...@debian.org writes:
Is it really useful to have only a subset of packages using the
format? Isn't only going to be the small packages that have no
particular licence problems that would adopt it because it's almost
trivial to do so? Unless maintainers of complex packages
On Sun, Mar 22 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
Neil Williams codeh...@debian.org writes:
We also need clarity on why debian/copyright should have a higher level
of scrutiny than the upstream itself. Debian does not hold copyright on
most upstream source packages, why do we second-guess upstream
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sun, Mar 22 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
Neil Williams codeh...@debian.org writes:
We also need clarity on why debian/copyright should have a higher level
of scrutiny than the upstream itself. Debian does not hold copyright on
most upstream source packages, why do
Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org writes:
,
| 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
|notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
|documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
`
Do we
Emilio Pozuelo Monfort po...@ubuntu.com writes:
And even if it was, there are binary packages whose /usr/share/doc/$pkg
is a symlink, so they have no copyright.
All such binaries have a hard dependency on a package that does include
copyright, but that's a good point. I don't know if legally
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 11:47:37AM +0100, Rene Engelhard wrote:
Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
The real problem here is that FTP masters require the list of copyright
holders to be up-to-date each time the package goes through NEW.
Whatever justification exists for this
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 01:32:40PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Emilio Pozuelo Monfort po...@ubuntu.com writes:
And even if it was, there are binary packages whose /usr/share/doc/$pkg
is a symlink, so they have no copyright.
All such binaries have a hard dependency on a package that does
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, Noah Slater wrote:
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 10:38:47AM +, Neil Williams wrote:
I'm still not convinced that machine-parseable formats are genuinely
useful or maintainable and I feel that machine-parseable
requirements inevitably impair human readability of copyright
On Tue, Mar 24 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org writes:
,
| 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
|notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
|documentation and/or other materials provided with
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 04:26:43PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
At this stage? If you are not willing to listen to feedback,
that had better be never. If the intent is for this to be broadly
adopted, the specification should be fixed as early as possible, and we
should not adopt
On Tue, Mar 24 2009, Noah Slater wrote:
Nice sound bite. But a spec or a standard's big value comes if
it is fixed to be widely accepted, even if it means that some parts of
the standard are optional.
I hope that you will contribute your opinion when DEP 5 has a draft to
review.
Bill Allombert bill.allomb...@math.u-bordeaux1.fr 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
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 05:50:26PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I am expressing my opinion now, on a mailing list devoted to
debian development. I have not been keeping up witht eh bureaucratic
rigmarole that seems to be being wrapped around discussions, not after
we got the
Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org writes:
At this stage? If you are not willing to listen to feedback,
that had better be never.
Feedback on the machine-parseable copyright specification is openly
solicited (though it is currently inefficiently gathered and
processed, and that
On Tue, Mar 24 2009, Noah Slater wrote:
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 05:50:26PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I am expressing my opinion now, on a mailing list devoted to
debian development. I have not been keeping up witht eh
bureaucratic rigmarole that seems to be being wrapped
On Tue, Mar 24 2009, Ben Finney wrote:
Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org writes:
At this stage? If you are not willing to listen to feedback,
that had better be never.
Feedback on the machine-parseable copyright specification is openly
solicited (though it is currently
Noah Slater wrote:
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 05:50:26PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I am expressing my opinion now, on a mailing list devoted to
debian development. I have not been keeping up witht eh bureaucratic
rigmarole that seems to be being wrapped around discussions, not
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 12:39:46AM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
I'm curious... What do you think *is* the Debian way of doing things
like this ?
Manoj's email strongly implied that a DEP was needless bureaucracy.
I'm hardly likely to argue with you about what constitutes the Debian way, but
Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org writes:
On Tue, Mar 24 2009, Ben Finney wrote:
If the spec is being bruited under the understanding that
the flaws do not matter
Who's doing that? Of course the flaws matter.
So answering criticism of the current spec with well, it is
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 13:22:04 +1100 Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au
wrote:
...
Those who don't like the very *idea* of a machine-parseable format for
.debian/copyright apparently exist, but I don't understand their
position yet :-)
I'd be one of those.
Whenever you add new structural
Scott Kitterman deb...@kitterman.com writes:
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 13:22:04 +1100 Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au
wrote:
...
Those who don't like the very *idea* of a machine-parseable format
for .debian/copyright ? apparently exist, but I don't understand
their position yet :-)
I'd
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:44:20 +1100 Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au
wrote:
Scott Kitterman deb...@kitterman.com writes:
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 13:22:04 +1100 Ben Finney
ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au
wrote:
...
Those who don't like the very *idea* of a machine-parseable format
for
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
On Mon, 2009-03-23 at 10:03 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
Anyway, thanks for the work on the format. To me it seems to
probably be a good thing. I hope this mail wasn't too negative.
I find this a little confusing, since you spent most of your message
saying how you *don't* think it's a good
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 12:49:12PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Jonas Meurer jo...@freesources.org writes:
On 21/03/2009 Mike Hommey wrote:
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 03:58:34PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Honestly, if you cant deal with listing the Authors/(C) holders - dont
maintain a
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 Sun, 22 Mar 2009 02:53:51 +
Noah Slater nsla...@tumbolia.org wrote:
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
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 02:47:04AM +, Noah Slater wrote:
This has clear advantages for being able to post-process, check, search, and
navigate copyright information using whatever tools the community decides
would
be profitable.
I'm not quite clear as to why this is an advantage yet
On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 02:47:04 +
Noah Slater nsla...@tumbolia.org wrote:
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 03:58:34PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Honestly, if you cant deal with listing the Authors/(C) holders - dont
maintain a package. It is not much work to list them. (It might be a lot
of work
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 jo...@debian.org writes:
We require, and have seen nothing to convince us
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
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 be
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 08:45:55PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Given that many people have already said that it is, perhaps this is the
point where you should just accept that they're not lying to you and
instead you're suffering from a failure of imagination?
I know from personal experience
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 11:35:02AM +, Neil Williams wrote:
IMHO it is about not getting hung up on the process but considering the
reasoning behind the process. AFAICT, there is no good reason to
document every single copyright holder but there are very good reasons
to document every
On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 12:56:06 +0100
Joerg Jaspert jo...@debian.org wrote:
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)
/me calms down too.
On 11696 March 1977, Russ Allbery
On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 12:16:10 +
Noah Slater nsla...@tumbolia.org wrote:
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 11:35:02AM +, Neil Williams wrote:
IMHO it is about not getting hung up on the process but considering the
reasoning behind the process. AFAICT, there is no good reason to
document every
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 11:42:29AM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
I'm not quite clear as to why this is an advantage yet Currently, this
seems to have been designed to provide interfaces for future tools to
use, while not regarding whether or not people want those tools.
Could you provide a use
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 11:54:49AM +, Neil Williams wrote:
Then reconsider the remark. The proposed format is more work for many
overworked maintainers, it presents no clear gain for those maintainers,
it overly complicates the file and file handling. There is no point
arguing about these
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 01:45:18PM +, Noah Slater wrote:
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 11:42:29AM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
I'm not quite clear as to why this is an advantage yet Currently, this
seems to have been designed to provide interfaces for future tools to
use, while not regarding
On Sun, 22 Mar 2009, Noah Slater wrote:
I'm not quite clear as to why this is an advantage yet Currently, this
seems to have been designed to provide interfaces for future tools to
use, while not regarding whether or not people want those tools.
Could you provide a use case or two to
* Noah Slater:
If you're telling me that the FTP masters would be happy with blanket license
statements for a package, what is stopping you from using the existing format
to
say something along the lines of:
Files: *
Copyright: Copyright 2008, Damien Katz dam...@apache.org
Le Sunday 22 March 2009 14:45:18 Noah Slater, vous avez écrit :
Could you provide a use case or two to help clarify things? The main
one I see is for an end user to look at a packages copyright file and
say 'yes, I can use it for $foo', which is a case that's detracted from
in the
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 03:47:39PM +0100, Romain Beauxis wrote:
Le Sunday 22 March 2009 14:45:18 Noah Slater, vous avez écrit :
Could you provide a use case or two to help clarify things? The main
one I see is for an end user to look at a packages copyright file and
say 'yes, I can use
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 03:35:13PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
Files: share/www/script/json.js
License: PD
In the public domain.
This file does not exist.
Yes, it seems the file is:
share/www/script/jso2.js
The file NOTICE contains this hint:
| This product includes software
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 02:13:20PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
Perhaps this is where we're not quite seeing eye-to-eye. I know that
machine readable copyright files would allow lintian checks. But what
would those checks be, and what would be the point of them?
I believe there has been so
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 03:27:46PM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
The way this process should work is that you (or somebody) writes those
tools.
Then, if DDs see that those tools are useful they will convert their
debian/copyright files to take advantage of those tools all by
themselves. No
Florian Weimer f...@deneb.enyo.de writes:
The file NOTICE contains this hint:
| This product includes software developed at
| The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
I'm wondering if this should be reflected in the copyright file (and
if the NOTICE file should be installed
On Sat, 2009-03-21 at 15:58 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Honestly, if you cant deal with listing the Authors/(C) holders - dont
maintain a package.
Is this you volunteering to maintain X?
Cheers,
Julien
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 11:35:26AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
I could see an argument that putting the contents of NOTICE into
debian/copyright satisfies the second possibility -- within the ...
documentation, if provided along with the Derivative works -- but I think
just installing the
On 2009-03-22, Noah Slater nsla...@tumbolia.org wrote:
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 04:31:58AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le dimanche 22 mars 2009 à 02:58 +, Noah Slater a écrit :
Again, while the documentation of individual licenses may not be policy,
it is
certainly policy for each
Jonas Meurer jo...@freesources.org (21/03/2009):
Joerg, please don't you see the consequences of your harsh discussion
style?
You can cross out “discussion” here.
Mraw,
KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Noah Slater nsla...@tumbolia.org 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
Joerg Jaspert jo...@debian.org 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
Neil Williams codeh...@debian.org writes:
We also need clarity on why debian/copyright should have a higher level
of scrutiny than the upstream itself. Debian does not hold copyright on
most upstream source packages, why do we second-guess upstream teams?
It's worth noting here that most
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 07:10:46PM +, Sune Vuorela wrote:
A license check must, by definition, involve each file in the package.
As re-quoted from the quote you previously quoted:
I don't see why it should be considered that much extra effort
documenting
the process.
On Sun, 2009-03-22 at 12:11 +, Noah Slater wrote:
Firmly in my mind is the cost/benefit of this extra effort. If we
succeed in integrating debian/copyright checks into lintian, or dpkg
and it's front-ends, it seems reasonable to imagine that this effort
would be a good trade-off.
I have
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 12:29:37PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Noah Slater nsla...@tumbolia.org 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.
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 can
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 01:02:22PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
we can just copy that notice, ignoring the fact that ISC doesn't do
copyright assignment and the actual copyrights are held by way more
different people than are explicitly mentioned there. I don't think
there's any utility in
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 09:00:34PM +0100, Arthur de Jong wrote:
I can understand there may be benefits of a parsable format but I don't
directly see enough gain. On the other hand there seems to be a lot of
(perceived) cost involved (maintainer work).
Implicit in your email is the idea that
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 02:47:04 +, Noah Slater wrote:
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 02:53:51 +, Noah Slater wrote:
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 02:55:47 +, Noah Slater wrote:
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 02:58:56 +, Noah Slater wrote:
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 03:02:51 +, Noah Slater wrote:
On
On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 21:24:51 +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 02:47:04 +, Noah Slater wrote:
[21 times]
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 20:19:56 +, Noah Slater wrote:
may I suggest you stop doing that?
What's wrong with properly replying without breaking threads? Yes,
On Sun, 22 Mar 2009, David Paleino wrote:
On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 21:24:51 +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 02:47:04 +, Noah Slater wrote:
[21 times]
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 20:19:56 +, Noah Slater wrote:
may I suggest you stop doing that?
What's wrong with
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 09:55:10PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
He is monopolizing the discussion. He should let some time pass between
replies to take into account the opinions of others. Furthermore, by
replying too fast he is actively making the discussion non-followable by
many persons
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 09:08:54PM +, Noah Slater wrote:
Am I the cat's mother? I'm not sure which is more rude, replying to emails
faster than other people or criticising someone's behaviour in a public forum.
If you think I reply to emails too fast, please do so in private in the
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
No. It is not up to the Debian maintainer to decide that some
contributor has written enough of the code to also be mentioned in the
(C) lines in a particular file. But as soon as upstream lists them
either in a file header or the AUTHORS file the Debian maintainer has to
Le dimanche 22 mars 2009 à 20:11 +, Noah Slater a écrit :
Did you mean copyright here? No one is disputing the need to document
the license of every file that goes into forming the contents of the
binary package.
No, I meant license.
It seems people ARE disputing that licenses be
Arthur de Jong adej...@debian.org writes:
I have been reading this discussion a bit and I've been wondering
what use-case you actually have for machine-readable
debian/copyright files.
Several off the top of my head:
* Automated generation of ‘license::foo’ tags for the package,
allowing
Peter Palfrader wea...@debian.org writes:
On Sun, 22 Mar 2009, Noah Slater wrote:
Listing the licences (not necessarily copyright holders) in a
machine readable format would allow lintian checks to be
developed, and maybe even automatic license compatibility checks
to be performed.
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 09:00:34PM +0100, Arthur de Jong wrote:
On Sun, 2009-03-22 at 12:11 +, Noah Slater wrote:
Firmly in my mind is the cost/benefit of this extra effort. If we
succeed in integrating debian/copyright checks into lintian, or dpkg
and it's front-ends, it seems
On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 15:00:00 -0700
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote:
No. It is not up to the Debian maintainer to decide that some
contributor has written enough of the code to also be mentioned in
the (C) lines in a particular file. But as soon as upstream lists
them either in a
On Sat, 2009-03-21 at 16:24 +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le samedi 21 mars 2009 à 15:58 +0100, Joerg Jaspert a écrit :
Honestly, if you cant deal with listing the Authors/(C) holders - dont
maintain a package. It is not much work to list them.
Bullshit. The last time FTP masters
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 policy.
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 sense
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
twice as
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).
Le samedi 21 mars 2009 à 15:04 +0100, Joerg Jaspert a écrit :
No. It is not up to the Debian maintainer to decide that some
contributor has written enough of the code to also be mentioned in the
(C) lines in a particular file. But as soon as upstream lists them
either in a file header or the
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. While in
1 - 100 of 203 matches
Mail list logo
