Bug#684117: unblock: fex/20120718-4
Hi, On Sun, Oct 07, 2012 at 08:54:07PM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote: > On Sun, Oct 07, 2012 at 07:35:09PM +0200, Kilian Krause wrote: > > since F*EX is now re-added as non-free with Perl Artistic license I herewith > > renew my request to allow the fex package to proceed to testing and thus > > allowing users of squeeze an upgrade path. > > did you submit the filtered diff Adam requested? no, and I've just ceased trying to cut down 55k lines of diff to the "relevant" parts. Since I don't quite feel that I will end up with what you or Adam feel "relevant" (and hence we'll do this loop a couple of times which none of us has the time to) I'll leave it up to d-release to decide wether or not we shall re-include fex as is or just leave it out for wheezy and have it come back in jessy. -- Best regards, Kilian signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#684117: unblock: fex/20120718-4
Hi, On Sun, Oct 07, 2012 at 07:35:09PM +0200, Kilian Krause wrote: > since F*EX is now re-added as non-free with Perl Artistic license I herewith > renew my request to allow the fex package to proceed to testing and thus > allowing users of squeeze an upgrade path. did you submit the filtered diff Adam requested? Kind regards Philipp Kern signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#684117: unblock: fex/20120718-4
Hi Philipp, since F*EX is now re-added as non-free with Perl Artistic license I herewith renew my request to allow the fex package to proceed to testing and thus allowing users of squeeze an upgrade path. Cheers, Kilian signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#684117: unblock: fex/20120718-4
Ulli Horlacher writes: > On Sat 2012-08-25 (16:34), Philipp Kern wrote: > >> Upstream could be petitioned to remove that clause... (I sort of understand >> it, >> too, but it's clearly against Debian's standards.) > > "Upstream" is me, the original author of F*EX. > No, I will not remove the anti-military clause in the license. Then the (A)GPL might be the wrong license for you. At least newer versions explicitly allow ignoring such terms: If the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term. Older versions also don't work with additional restrictions. Adding them will make the program undistributable by anyone except the copyright holder (as the GPL requires to distribute it under GPL with no further restrictions, but now there are some). Ansgar -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#684117: unblock: fex/20120718-4
On Sat 2012-08-25 (16:34), Philipp Kern wrote: > Upstream could be petitioned to remove that clause... (I sort of understand > it, > too, but it's clearly against Debian's standards.) "Upstream" is me, the original author of F*EX. No, I will not remove the anti-military clause in the license. > Well, it could still be moved to non-free. Sounds as a good compromise solution for me. > I wonder how it passed NEW in the beginning, though. It was always that way, > you say? Yes, the anti-military clause was there since the beginning of the project. What I have changed lately was the basis license from GPL to AGPL. -- Ullrich Horlacher Informationssysteme und Serverbetrieb Rechenzentrum IZUS/TIK E-Mail: horlac...@rus.uni-stuttgart.de Universitaet Stuttgart Tel:++49-711-68565868 Allmandring 30aFax:++49-711-682357 70550 Stuttgart (Germany) WWW:http://www.rus.uni-stuttgart.de/ REF: <20120825143456.ga20...@spike.0x539.de> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#684117: unblock: fex/20120718-4
On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 03:50:00PM +0200, Kilian Krause wrote: > As I'm not seeing any chance of meeting DFSG criteria 5 and 6 with the above > intention (which clearly is discriminating certain groups - even though > personally I can perfectly well understand upstream's will on why this is) > I'm herewith seeking ftpmaster assistance on coming forth with a solution. > > IOW, I'm out of ideas on how to solve the problem of the DFSG while > respecting upstreams intended limitation. Is there any way we could > formulate such limitation as upstream desires without breaking the DFSG? Upstream could be petitioned to remove that clause… (I sort of understand it, too, but it's clearly against Debian's standards.) > Unless someone can come forth with a wording that does cover both > requirements I guess we'll be bound to removing F*EX from the archive - > which IMHO would be a sad loss as there currently exsits no other product in > Debian providing the same services as F*EX does. Well, it could still be moved to non-free. I wonder how it passed NEW in the beginning, though. It was always that way, you say? Kind regards Philipp Kern signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#684117: unblock: fex/20120718-4
Hi Philipp, On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 02:24:41AM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote: > On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 09:13:42PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > > + YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO USE THIS SOFTWARE FOR MILITARY PURPOSES OR WITHIN > > + MILITARY ORGANIZATIONS! THIS INCLUDES ALSO MILITARY RESEARCH AND > > + EDUCATION! > > That doesn't really seem like something Debian can really meet or > > enforce... > > Hereby bringing this to the attention of the ftp-masters. fex is in main > but includes that clause on top of AGPL-3. > > Which probably means for one that it's no longer compatible with GPL code, > which might or might not be relevant, and, more severly, it's not compatible > with the DFSG. after some discussion with upstream the problem is as follows: Upstream has ever since had this clause in his license file so this is no new requirement. Obvious up until now this has either been overlooked or not been a problem. The change from GPL to AGPL has thus nothing to do with his intention to not support terrorist activities and to ensure the broadest coverage possible he has ruled out all military. As I'm not seeing any chance of meeting DFSG criteria 5 and 6 with the above intention (which clearly is discriminating certain groups - even though personally I can perfectly well understand upstream's will on why this is) I'm herewith seeking ftpmaster assistance on coming forth with a solution. IOW, I'm out of ideas on how to solve the problem of the DFSG while respecting upstreams intended limitation. Is there any way we could formulate such limitation as upstream desires without breaking the DFSG? Unless someone can come forth with a wording that does cover both requirements I guess we'll be bound to removing F*EX from the archive - which IMHO would be a sad loss as there currently exsits no other product in Debian providing the same services as F*EX does. Thanks for your help. -- Best regards, Kilian signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#684117: unblock: fex/20120718-4
Hi Adam,
On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 09:13:42PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-08-07 at 09:10 +0200, Kilian Krause wrote:
> > Please unblock package fex
> >
> > It addresses all currently known issues. It would be great if this could
> > make it into wheezy still to spare us unneccessary work with supporting
> > the 20120215-3 on our own.
>
> + if (open $log,'>',$log) {
>
> Am I missing some Perl trickery here, or should the second $log be
> something else?
This is perfectly ok according to upstream and works as intended.
[...]
> + YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO USE THIS SOFTWARE FOR MILITARY PURPOSES OR WITHIN
> + MILITARY ORGANIZATIONS! THIS INCLUDES ALSO MILITARY RESEARCH AND
> + EDUCATION!
>
> That doesn't really seem like something Debian can really meet or
> enforce...
Upstream will try to come forth with an updated license.
> The overall diff is
>
> 187 files changed, 2409 insertions(+), 19174 deletions(-)
>
> Most of the deletions will be the fix removal, but that still leaves
> quite a lot to review, which mostly seems to be made up of small
> changes. I've tried tying some of them up with the upstream changelog,
> but none of that appears to account for e.g. the repeated
> s/time/int(time)/.
>
> Would it be possible to have a filtered diff, ignoring the fix removal,
> documentation changes and the "hidden" easter egg options which upstream
> seem to have added?
I'll see what I can come up with.
--
Best regards,
Kilian
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Bug#684117: unblock: fex/20120718-4
On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 09:13:42PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > + YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO USE THIS SOFTWARE FOR MILITARY PURPOSES OR WITHIN > + MILITARY ORGANIZATIONS! THIS INCLUDES ALSO MILITARY RESEARCH AND > + EDUCATION! > That doesn't really seem like something Debian can really meet or > enforce... Hereby bringing this to the attention of the ftp-masters. fex is in main but includes that clause on top of AGPL-3. Which probably means for one that it's no longer compatible with GPL code, which might or might not be relevant, and, more severly, it's not compatible with the DFSG. Kind regards Philipp Kern signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#684117: unblock: fex/20120718-4
Control: tags -1 + moreinfo
On Tue, 2012-08-07 at 09:10 +0200, Kilian Krause wrote:
> Please unblock package fex
>
> It addresses all currently known issues. It would be great if this could
> make it into wheezy still to spare us unneccessary work with supporting
> the 20120215-3 on our own.
+ if (open $log,'>',$log) {
Am I missing some Perl trickery here, or should the second $log be
something else?
+ * Only minor fixes so setting urgency=high to get this into Wheezy still
+
+ -- Kilian Krause Mon, 06 Aug 2012 15:25:16 +0200
I'm not quite sure of the logic there, given that we were already over a
month in to freeze so upload urgency really wasn't the governing factor
as to whether the package would make the release.
+ YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO USE THIS SOFTWARE FOR MILITARY PURPOSES OR WITHIN
+ MILITARY ORGANIZATIONS! THIS INCLUDES ALSO MILITARY RESEARCH AND
+ EDUCATION!
That doesn't really seem like something Debian can really meet or
enforce...
The overall diff is
187 files changed, 2409 insertions(+), 19174 deletions(-)
Most of the deletions will be the fix removal, but that still leaves
quite a lot to review, which mostly seems to be made up of small
changes. I've tried tying some of them up with the upstream changelog,
but none of that appears to account for e.g. the repeated
s/time/int(time)/.
Would it be possible to have a filtered diff, ignoring the fix removal,
documentation changes and the "hidden" easter egg options which upstream
seem to have added?
Regards,
Adam
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#684117: unblock: fex/20120718-4
Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: unblock Please unblock package fex It addresses all currently known issues. It would be great if this could make it into wheezy still to spare us unneccessary work with supporting the 20120215-3 on our own. F*EX is a file exchange service based on http. The previous versions did include a java applet (F*IX) that yielded a more fancy UI than the classic HTML web page. Upstream has dropped the entire java code base as its maintainer is no longer able to support it. The F*EX maintainer himself denoted the drop with "F*IX removed because of too many bugs and no maintainer any more" in the release notes for the last version. The current version in wheezy (20120215-3) is still shipping with F*IX. unblock fex/20120718-4 Cheers, Kilian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
