Bug#332782: Please explain the etch-ignore tag
Hi, On Sat, Apr 07, 2007 at 12:17:20AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: On Fri, 6 Apr 2007 23:42:15 +0900 Osamu Aoki wrote: For the record, I sign up any DSFG compliant copyright notice. Thanks. I take it as an agreement to the licensing proposed in the final part of http://lists.debian.org/debian-doc/2007/03/msg00159.html I do not know which one yet. What I know is I agree with what ever Frans nd/or Javi (will) think right. Could you please determine the years in which you have contributed to the Release Notes and tell me how you would want your copyright notice look like? Sorry, we should have answer in CVS (I do not remember) but so far I haven't found one yet there. http://cvs.debian.org/ddp/manuals.sgml/release-notes/?root=debian-doc So far, I could not be able to find any code or text marked with my account. Javi, how did you come up with my name? May be it was just your guess. Current checking script for translation version is now completely yours. Some text in installation guide (mouse section) may be mine but non in R-N I remember but please think first how to improve situation and put your effort rather than letting others do lots of work for non-critical issue. So far, it seems that many people want *me* to do lots of work... Yes. I really do not undersand your thought on the volunteer project. Do you expect others to do lots of work...? It is fair for you to file a wishlist bug for clarification and it will be appreciated. But when you start requesting lots of work for lower priority work urgently to other volunters, I am not quite sure it is good idea or not. By all means, I appreciate Javi's lead on cleaning this up this loose end. Osamu signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#332782: Please explain the etch-ignore tag
On Sat, Apr 07, 2007 at 10:08:57PM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote: So far, I could not be able to find any code or text marked with my account. Javi, how did you come up with my name? May be it was just your guess. Current checking script for translation version is now completely yours. Some text in installation guide (mouse section) may be mine but non in R-N I remember There was a commit log message that said: Added some suggestions provided by Osamu Asoki improving some text and segmenting recommendations (revision 1.186, commited by myself) and Add Osamu's suggestion of mentioning screen when using ssh (revision 1.185) IIRC they all come from the patch you provided at #401317. Regards Javier signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#332782: Please explain the etch-ignore tag
On Sat, Apr 07, 2007 at 05:49:07PM +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote: On Sat, Apr 07, 2007 at 10:08:57PM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote: So far, I could not be able to find any code or text marked with my account. Javi, how did you come up with my name? May be it was just your guess. Current checking script for translation version is now completely yours. Some text in installation guide (mouse section) may be mine but non in R-N I remember There was a commit log message that said: Added some suggestions provided by Osamu Asoki improving some text and segmenting recommendations (revision 1.186, commited by myself) and Add Osamu's suggestion of mentioning screen when using ssh (revision 1.185) I now recall them. IIRC they all come from the patch you provided at #401317. I see. Thanks. Osamu
Bug#332782: Please explain the etch-ignore tag
On Sat, 7 Apr 2007 22:08:57 +0900 Osamu Aoki wrote: On Sat, Apr 07, 2007 at 12:17:20AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: [...] So far, it seems that many people want *me* to do lots of work... Yes. I really do not undersand your thought on the volunteer project. Do you expect others to do lots of work...? Osamu, please realize that I am external to the Debian Project: I filed a bug report, I am not the one who is primarily supposed to fix the bug... I understand that, in a volunteer project, things get done when it's possible and by people most interested in getting them done. On the other hand, treating me as if I were responsible for the resolution of this bug does *not* seem fair... It is fair for you to file a wishlist bug for clarification and it will be appreciated. We are already *inside* a bug log! Since it's about a severe violation of Debian policy, it's a serious bug (even though it was gratuitously granted an etch-ignore tag...). But when you start requesting lots of work for lower priority work Lower priority?!? Fixing RC bugs should not be considered as lower priority... urgently Urgently?!? I filed the bug report back on October 2005... to other volunters, I am not quite sure it is good idea or not. I'm simply asking for some encouraging agreements to the licensing. After that, I will be able to start digging in the CVS logs and building a comprehensive list of individual copyright holders. With such a list, I will be able to contact the copyright holders and ask them to agree to the licensing. By all means, I appreciate Javi's lead on cleaning this up this loose end. I appreciate *any* help on this issue. Bickering is not helpful, though: let's stop doing so and move on collecting agreements to the licensing so that this issue can be solved for lenny! -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/etch_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian etch installation walk-through? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgp7EQlMIZCNc.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#332782: Please explain the etch-ignore tag
On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 01:03:33 +0900 Osamu Aoki wrote: On Sat, Apr 07, 2007 at 05:49:07PM +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote: [...] IIRC they all come from the patch you provided at #401317. I see. Thanks. If I read the CVS-diffs[1][2] and the patch[3] by Osamu correctly, that qualifies for a: Copyright 2006 Osamu Aoki [EMAIL PROTECTED] Is that right? [1] http://cvs.debian.org/ddp/manuals.sgml/release-notes/en/release-notes.en.sgml?root=debian-docr1=1.184r2=1.185diff_format=h [2] http://cvs.debian.org/ddp/manuals.sgml/release-notes/en/release-notes.en.sgml?root=debian-docr1=1.185r2=1.186diff_format=h [3] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=401317;msg=5;filename=diff.txt;att=1 -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/etch_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian etch installation walk-through? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpJBiAgHj90P.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#332782: Please explain the etch-ignore tag
On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 11:42:15PM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote: Hmm... as for names and e-mail addreses I think we need to dig that information first. Years would be 1999-2007, they seem to have been first written for slink (http://www.es.debian.org/releases/slink/#release-notes). The DDP CVS only has the Release Notes since woody (january 2003), previously they Release Notes resided in the boot-floppies' CVS. First of all, I think whoever contributed to the DEBIAN release-note was the one who implicitly agreed basic debian purpose and releasing R-N is part of the objective we all agreed. This is true, but Debian is a big organization with room for many different opinions about which licenses are good, and we should be able to state clearly to people who want to reuse content from our release notes, what the license is that they're allowed to do so under. I know it is week argument but, at the same time, what is the likely risk of someone suing Debian for the releasing R-N as clarified GPL2 doc. Not very; but I don't think that removes our responsibility to set a good example when it comes to treating the intellectual property of others with respect, even when those others are part of Debian and we think we have a good idea of what theri views are. - Osamu Asoki Osamu Aoki, I think. I do not remember what I did. I understand spelling name correctly is tough :-) Wow, sorry for not catching this in the list of misspellings, I do know your name... :) Cheers, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#332782: Please explain the etch-ignore tag
On Sun, Apr 08, 2007 at 01:03:33AM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote: On Sat, Apr 07, 2007 at 05:49:07PM +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote: On Sat, Apr 07, 2007 at 10:08:57PM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote: There was a commit log message that said: Added some suggestions provided by Osamu Asoki improving some text and Typo Asoki is now in CVS Log fixed. Just in case you wonder ... Jens
Bug#332782: Please explain the etch-ignore tag
Hi, Sigh... I understand it is nice if we had copyright section but after all this was note. On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 01:47:50AM +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote: On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 11:02:00PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: Thank you for agreeing to the licensing[1], could you please tell me the relevant years, name and (optional) e-mail address, for the copyright notice? Hmm... as for names and e-mail addreses I think we need to dig that information first. Years would be 1999-2007, they seem to have been first written for slink (http://www.es.debian.org/releases/slink/#release-notes). The DDP CVS only has the Release Notes since woody (january 2003), previously they Release Notes resided in the boot-floppies' CVS. First of all, I think whoever contributed to the DEBIAN release-note was the one who implicitly agreed basic debian purpose and releasing R-N is part of the objective we all agreed. I know it is week argument but, at the same time, what is the likely risk of someone suing Debian for the releasing R-N as clarified GPL2 doc. What do the other co-authors and contributors have to say about this licensing? Do you agree or disagree? Notice that many of the people listed as co-authors (such as Josip or Adam) are no longer subscribed to -doc. Some of the past co-authors/contributors might not even be Debian Developers (or contributors) anymore. Obviously enough, I'm *not* going to dig into the CVS logs to collect a comprehensive list of individual contributors, unless I first receive agreements from an encouraging number of main credited authors and some other contributors... ;-) I'm pretty sure most of the current editors agree with the licensing. They are, however, right now out of time to cater this issue (we are trying to release etch, after all). Digging into the CVS logs should not be that hard, in addition to the ones I listed (editors), I find (in a cursory glance): - Frédéric Bothamy - Daniel Nylander - Roberto C. Sánchez - Clytie Siddall - Frederik Schueler - Frank Lichtenheld - Adeodato Simón - Nobuhiro IMAI - Luk Cleas - A. Mennucc - Martin Michlmayr - Osamu Asoki Osamu Aoki, I think. I do not remember what I did. I understand spelling name correctly is tough :-) - Steve Langasek - Jordi Polo It is worth noting that: a) Their contributions might not be present in the current RN anymore b) Some of the patches they provided might be just typo fixes and not actual text. I don't believe those grant one co-author status for a document. Additionally, references to bugs in the BTS should be reviewed, as some logs refer to bugs which might have included a patch from the submitter. Obtaining a contributors list from 1999-2003 might be more difficult, however, and it still might be relevant. For example, contents of the following patch from Chris Tillman for woody's release notes seems to still be present in etch's Release Notes: http://lists.debian.org/debian-doc/2001/12/msg00023.html (sent and applied by Rob Bradford) The boot-floppies CVS (which held that information) seems not to be available anymore (or at least I cannot find it in gluck). Does anyone keep a backup of that one? Regards Javier If Francesco feels strong about this issue, he should at least put his effort to send out licensing clarification notice to all involved with contactable address and give us how they respond to the licensing clarification to the GPL2 and move one. If anyone object, they should clarify what section they own copyright and, if they disagree, let them or Francesco report to us about their position. Then we remove that section. For the record, I sign up any DSFG compliant copyright notice. Francesco, thanks for pointing out shortcomings but please think first how to improve situation and put your effort rather than letting others do lots of work for non-critical issue. Sorry for strong word but if you did what Javi did, I would have been a bit more positive. I know you feel strong about this issue but improving situation is best done by coercion not finger pointing. Regards, Osamu signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#332782: Please explain the etch-ignore tag
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 00:37:24 +0200 Frans Pop wrote: On Thursday 05 April 2007 23:02, Francesco Poli wrote: Obviously enough, I'm *not* going to dig into the CVS logs to collect a comprehensive list of individual contributors, unless I first receive agreements from an encouraging number of main credited authors and some other contributors... ;-) Why the hell not? You seem to be the person most interested in fixing this. Seems only logical to me that you do the work. Frans, frankly speaking, I cannot understand your line of reasoning. IANADD, I spotted a bug in the Debian Release Notes back in October 2005, I reported it to the Debian BTS, nothing seems to have been done to fix it until March 2007; I am now trying to help in fixing it, but I cannot fix it without cooperation from copyright holders (since the bug under consideration is a licensing one). I said that, before spending my spare time (which is not so abundant, you know...) in digging into lots of CVS logs, I would like to see agreements from at least the easy-to-determine-and-reach copyright holders. It seems reasonable to me. Your answer basically is you care, you do all the work!. Could you please avoid acting in such a discouraging manner and *say* whether you actually agree or disagree to the licensing? You already contributed twice to this discussion, but you haven't yet said anything about your will (or lack thereof) to license your copyrighted part of the Release Notes under the GNU GPL v2. Please, see again the final part of http://lists.debian.org/debian-doc/2007/03/msg00159.html for the detailed question, and give an answer. -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/etch_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian etch installation walk-through? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpkHY6nN1gMO.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#332782: Please explain the etch-ignore tag
On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 11:42:15PM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote: Hi, Sigh... I understand it is nice if we had copyright section but after all this was note. Well, now it's a document over 50 pages long (for most architectures, anyway). So it should have its own license section. If Francesco feels strong about this issue, he should at least put his effort to send out licensing clarification notice to all involved with contactable address and give us how they respond to the licensing clarification to the GPL2 and move one. I think we only need to: a) add the GPL license, as it should have had when it moved from b-f's CVS to the DDP b) ask those that might not be aware that the document is GPL (as it lacked a copyright notice in the DDP CVS, but it had one in the main tarball when it was part of the boot-floppies). c) notify translators that they should be based on that license (some translations should already have the license as they were part of the original b-f CVS too) If anyone object, they should clarify what section they own copyright and, if they disagree, let them or Francesco report to us about their position. Then we remove that section. True. I don't expect anybody to disagree, however, but you never know. For the record, I sign up any DSFG compliant copyright notice. Thanks. Javier signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#332782: Please explain the etch-ignore tag
On Fri, 6 Apr 2007 23:42:15 +0900 Osamu Aoki wrote: [...] If Francesco feels strong about this issue, he should at least put his effort to send out licensing clarification notice to all involved with contactable address and give us how they respond to the licensing clarification to the GPL2 and move one. If anyone object, they should clarify what section they own copyright and, if they disagree, let them or Francesco report to us about their position. Then we remove that section. That is more or less what I am planning to do, even though all this you do the work and then report back is not really encouraging. However, before moving on with this plan, I need to see whether there's consensus at least among the copyright holders that are subscribed to the debian-doc list: if one of the main co-authors objected to the licensing, any effort in contacting all the individual contributors and asking them to agree to the currently proposed licensing would be a waste of time... For the record, I sign up any DSFG compliant copyright notice. Thanks. I take it as an agreement to the licensing proposed in the final part of http://lists.debian.org/debian-doc/2007/03/msg00159.html Could you please determine the years in which you have contributed to the Release Notes and tell me how you would want your copyright notice look like? Copyright $YEARS Osamu Aoki [EMAIL PROTECTED] Which years? With or without e-mail address? With a different e-mail address? Francesco, thanks for pointing out shortcomings You're welcome. but please think first how to improve situation and put your effort rather than letting others do lots of work for non-critical issue. So far, it seems that many people want *me* to do lots of work... Sorry for strong word but if you did what Javi did, I would have been a bit more positive. I know you feel strong about this issue but improving situation is best done by coercion not finger pointing. I am not pointing fingers: I reported an issue, I am not the one who is supposed to fix it (IANADD). I am happy to help, but only as long as other involved people act in a cooperative manner... -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/etch_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian etch installation walk-through? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpGyIfkVFFZD.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#332782: Please explain the etch-ignore tag
On Friday 06 April 2007 23:59, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote: a) add the GPL license, as it should have had when it moved from b-f's CVS to the DDP Add the whole GPL licence with all translation problems that brings? Please not! Let's just have a simple statement and a reference to where the fill licence can be found. If that can't be done with the GPL, then let's please choose another DFSG compatible one. pgpYWXMhXS6UM.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#332782: Please explain the etch-ignore tag
On Sat, Apr 07, 2007 at 12:12:19AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: On Friday 06 April 2007 23:59, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote: a) add the GPL license, as it should have had when it moved from b-f's CVS to the DDP Add the whole GPL licence with all translation problems that brings? Hmmm.. actually I should have said add the GPL *disclaimer* and not the license itself. Note that even the GPL *disclaimer* should have those translation problems you might be thinking of. For example, see the disclaimer http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/securing-debian-howto/index.en.html (it uses a liberal way to refer to the GPL, not exactly what the How to apply these terms to your new programs text from the GPL, as seen in http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html#SEC4, says) Based on that disclaimer translations can include a) the license in untranslated form b) the translated license *if* it has been approved by the FSF c) an unapproved translated license, together with the original license As there are no approved translations nobody should go to b) In the French translation of that document, they go for the a) approach with a twist (and additional disclaimer in French :), see: http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/securing-debian-howto/index.fr.html I guess your comment is related to the discussion in d-i that changed how GPL translations were handled (Message-id: [EMAIL PROTECTED], may 2006), but I think it's perfectly OK to include just the GPL disclaimer and point to where the GPL is (maybe provide it in the CDs/DVDs themselves?) instead of including the full GPL license text in the document itself (as is done in d-i) Please not! Let's just have a simple statement and a reference to where the fill licence can be found. Full? In any case, your proposal was the same as mine, only mine was not properly worded. If that can't be done with the GPL, then let's please choose another DFSG compatible one. We sure can't change the license. If we assume the document is GPL-licensed (as it was part of b-f's codebase) then relicensing it would certainly mean asking *all* copyright holders. Going back to all contributors from 1999 to the present date is certainly not an option. I believe the GPL disclaimer is OK, after all, but we might want to have the debian-cd masters add the GPL itself in the same directory as the Release Notes, so that we can point to it locally (and not in a remote URL). Sounds like a good plan to you for (maybe) r1? Regards Javier signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#332782: Please explain the etch-ignore tag
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 12:17:40 +0100 Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote: Let's start collecting agreements on the licensing: each of the above mentioned copyright holders, could you please tell (preferably with a OpenPGP-signed reply) whether you agree to license your contribution under the following terms? I'm not that list, but I agree with licensing my contributions under those terms. Thank you for agreeing to the licensing[1], could you please tell me the relevant years, name and (optional) e-mail address, for the copyright notice? What do the other co-authors and contributors have to say about this licensing? Do you agree or disagree? Please see the final part of http://lists.debian.org/debian-doc/2007/03/msg00159.html for the detailed question. Obviously enough, I'm *not* going to dig into the CVS logs to collect a comprehensive list of individual contributors, unless I first receive agreements from an encouraging number of main credited authors and some other contributors... ;-) [1] I've been hoping to send a collective thanks to the many people that would answer to my question, but Javier seems to be the only responding contributor, so far... Not a good start for this licensing effort! :-( P.S.: please reply to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and Cc: me, as well; thanks. -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/etch_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian etch installation walk-through? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpsgh2y0rv4f.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#332782: Please explain the etch-ignore tag
On Thursday 05 April 2007 23:02, Francesco Poli wrote: Obviously enough, I'm *not* going to dig into the CVS logs to collect a comprehensive list of individual contributors, unless I first receive agreements from an encouraging number of main credited authors and some other contributors... ;-) Why the hell not? You seem to be the person most interested in fixing this. Seems only logical to me that you do the work. pgphSSYZ5GBCt.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#332782: Please explain the etch-ignore tag
On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 11:02:00PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: Thank you for agreeing to the licensing[1], could you please tell me the relevant years, name and (optional) e-mail address, for the copyright notice? Hmm... as for names and e-mail addreses I think we need to dig that information first. Years would be 1999-2007, they seem to have been first written for slink (http://www.es.debian.org/releases/slink/#release-notes). The DDP CVS only has the Release Notes since woody (january 2003), previously they Release Notes resided in the boot-floppies' CVS. What do the other co-authors and contributors have to say about this licensing? Do you agree or disagree? Notice that many of the people listed as co-authors (such as Josip or Adam) are no longer subscribed to -doc. Some of the past co-authors/contributors might not even be Debian Developers (or contributors) anymore. Obviously enough, I'm *not* going to dig into the CVS logs to collect a comprehensive list of individual contributors, unless I first receive agreements from an encouraging number of main credited authors and some other contributors... ;-) I'm pretty sure most of the current editors agree with the licensing. They are, however, right now out of time to cater this issue (we are trying to release etch, after all). Digging into the CVS logs should not be that hard, in addition to the ones I listed (editors), I find (in a cursory glance): - Frédéric Bothamy - Daniel Nylander - Roberto C. Sánchez - Clytie Siddall - Frederik Schueler - Frank Lichtenheld - Adeodato Simón - Nobuhiro IMAI - Luk Cleas - A. Mennucc - Martin Michlmayr - Osamu Asoki - Steve Langasek - Jordi Polo It is worth noting that: a) Their contributions might not be present in the current RN anymore b) Some of the patches they provided might be just typo fixes and not actual text. I don't believe those grant one co-author status for a document. Additionally, references to bugs in the BTS should be reviewed, as some logs refer to bugs which might have included a patch from the submitter. Obtaining a contributors list from 1999-2003 might be more difficult, however, and it still might be relevant. For example, contents of the following patch from Chris Tillman for woody's release notes seems to still be present in etch's Release Notes: http://lists.debian.org/debian-doc/2001/12/msg00023.html (sent and applied by Rob Bradford) The boot-floppies CVS (which held that information) seems not to be available anymore (or at least I cannot find it in gluck). Does anyone keep a backup of that one? Regards Javier signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#332782: Please explain the etch-ignore tag
On Sat, Mar 24, 2007 at 05:58:27PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: Anyway, if a license change was properly announced beforehand contributors that feel that their rights are violated would have ample time to express their concerns. Are there really so many substantial contributors that it would be hard to ask them all? Can't tell for sure. But digging the information can be really hard, the release notes have been written since 1999. This bug has changed into exactly the same type of discussion that prevents #388141 from being fixed any time soon, even though all the web pages have a footer that says this text is copyright SPI and no contributor has ever said that the copyright statement should be ammended to include *him*. Well, sorry, but that's a bug in the documentation team's process for not proactively requiring copyright disclaimers. Well, I mean, you could argue that it's a bug in copyright law, but we don't have the power to fix that bug... You could say that the Release Notes were first in the realm of the boot-floppies team (in its CVS) and, actually, were outside the scope of the documentation team's. Hmm... Now that I think of it, one could say that since the Release Notes were originally part of the boot-floppies sources, and since the boot-floppies were fully under the GPL (or so does their debian/copyright file say) then the current Release Notes (derived work of that one) can only be under the GPL license. Right? I've just checked on archive.debian.org, slink's boot-floppies package sources available at http://archive.debian.org/dists/Debian-2.1/main/source/admin/boot-floppies_2.1.12.tar.gz advertise themselves as being under the GPL. The debian/copyright file is (more or less) unchanged in the different incarnations of the source. Even if the SGML file in itself does not carry the license (like b-f's install manual did, which got carried over to d-i's) FWIW, in slink the RN were translated to Spanish, Finnish, French, German, Czech, Japanese, Polish, Portuguese, Russian, Slovenian and Hungarian. So the GPL license would apply to those too (and to Catalonian and Danish) Regards Javier signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#332782: Please explain the etch-ignore tag
On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 01:47:50AM +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote: On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 11:02:00PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: Thank you for agreeing to the licensing[1], could you please tell me the relevant years, name and (optional) e-mail address, for the copyright notice? Hmm... as for names and e-mail addreses I think we need to dig that information first. Years would be 1999-2007, they seem to have been first written for slink (http://www.es.debian.org/releases/slink/#release-notes). The DDP CVS only has the Release Notes since woody (january 2003), previously they Release Notes resided in the boot-floppies' CVS. FWIW, I think his question was about what years you personally have copyright over the work. For my part (now that I seem to have been made an editor and have to do this too, pff), I'm fine to have any of my contributions to the release notes distributed under the GPL v2. My copyright information is: Copyright 2007 Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Adeodato Simón Adeodato Simó - Luk Cleas Luk Claes - A. Mennucc proper name is Andrea Mennucci, I never understood where that 'i' disappeared to.. - Jordi Polo Jordà Polo a) Their contributions might not be present in the current RN anymore 'cvs annotate' should help with this, when cross-referenced with commit logs. I can help script something up to check all of this, but not until after etch is out. b) Some of the patches they provided might be just typo fixes and not actual text. I don't believe those grant one co-author status for a document. True. Cheers, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#332782: Please explain the etch-ignore tag
On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 01:47:50AM +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote: On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 11:02:00PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: Thank you for agreeing to the licensing[1], could you please tell me the relevant years, name and (optional) e-mail address, for the copyright notice? The DDP CVS only has the Release Notes since woody (january 2003), previously they Release Notes resided in the boot-floppies' CVS. Please note that there was at least one file system corruption which affected also the CVS on the server. I'm sure most information could be restored from backups, but honestly I doubt this is true for all information. Also note that CVS allows to change commit messages. There should be no abuse of it, but it is at least technically possible to create fake entries. It is worth noting that: a) Their contributions might not be present in the current RN anymore Do these persons still need to agree to a license change? The boot-floppies CVS (which held that information) seems not to be available anymore (or at least I cannot find it in gluck). Does anyone keep a backup of that one? Oops, you're right. Debian admins probably have backups. IIRC Joey made backups available in his home directory, don't know whether this is still true. Jens
Bug#332782: Please explain the etch-ignore tag
On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 02:11:22AM +0200, Jens Seidel wrote: Also note that CVS allows to change commit messages. There should be no abuse of it, but it is at least technically possible to create fake entries. That's not something we need to worry about in advance of a relicensing. a) Their contributions might not be present in the current RN anymore Do these persons still need to agree to a license change? No, they don't. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#332782: Please explain the etch-ignore tag
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 03:45:55PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: That won't be comprehensive though, because there are a limited number of authorized committers who often commit changes contributed by others. Contributors do not necessarily have (c) over the Release Notes, from my understanding, only authors have copyrights and the Release Notes clearly lists who are the main authors. It is my understanding that if any contributor wanted to assert any influence over the license that the Release Notes uses he would first ask to have his name added as an author (and, consequently, a (c) owner of the text). Just for the same reason we don't ask patch submitters in the BTS to sign a (c) statement for packages we shouldn't be asking contributors sending patches to the BTS (or committing them directly) to do the same for documentation. Considering all contributors equal (regardless of size), with all of them being copyright holders for the Release Notes and having veto rights for a license change is insane. Anyway, if a license change was properly announced beforehand contributors that feel that their rights are violated would have ample time to express their concerns. This bug has changed into exactly the same type of discussion that prevents #388141 from being fixed any time soon, even though all the web pages have a footer that says this text is copyright SPI and no contributor has ever said that the copyright statement should be ammended to include *him*. Regards Javier signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#332782: Please explain the etch-ignore tag
On Sun, Mar 25, 2007 at 01:31:28AM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote: On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 03:45:55PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: That won't be comprehensive though, because there are a limited number of authorized committers who often commit changes contributed by others. Contributors do not necessarily have (c) over the Release Notes, from my understanding, only authors have copyrights and the Release Notes clearly lists who are the main authors. Sorry, that's incorrect. A contributor has copyright over any contribution they've made which is substantial enough to merit protection under copyright law. The line for substantial enough varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but to be on the safe side we should probably treat any contributions of a paragraph or more to be copyrightable and ask them. And if someone has contributed a translation of the release notes to another language, that's *definitely* subject to its own copyright. It is my understanding that if any contributor wanted to assert any influence over the license that the Release Notes uses he would first ask to have his name added as an author (and, consequently, a (c) owner of the text). Hmm, is this a convention that was prominently documented? If we're going to spend effort on fixing the license status, we might as well do it right, and that would mean not making assumptions about implicit waivers of copyright. Just for the same reason we don't ask patch submitters in the BTS to sign a (c) statement for packages we shouldn't be asking contributors sending patches to the BTS (or committing them directly) to do the same for documentation. Considering all contributors equal (regardless of size), with all of them being copyright holders for the Release Notes and having veto rights for a license change is insane. Sorry, but that's the reality of copyright law. If you disagree that the contribution of a particular contributor is significant enough that they should have veto rights over the license, then you can rewrite that part of the documentation from scratch; if this is non-trivial, then that's a pretty clear argument that their contribution is of value under copyright law... Anyway, if a license change was properly announced beforehand contributors that feel that their rights are violated would have ample time to express their concerns. Are there really so many substantial contributors that it would be hard to ask them all? This bug has changed into exactly the same type of discussion that prevents #388141 from being fixed any time soon, even though all the web pages have a footer that says this text is copyright SPI and no contributor has ever said that the copyright statement should be ammended to include *him*. Well, sorry, but that's a bug in the documentation team's process for not proactively requiring copyright disclaimers. Well, I mean, you could argue that it's a bug in copyright law, but we don't have the power to fix that bug... -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
Bug#332782: Please explain the etch-ignore tag
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 12:49:49AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: - once a consensus is reached there, contact individual contributors to the release notes requesting a license grant Where can I find a comprehensive list of individual contributors (whose contribution is creative enough to grant them a copyright interest in the work)? It would have to be extracted from the CVS logs. Are there any others besides the ones who are credited in the footer of the contents page[2]? Yes, many, most of them Debian developers (like myself) who modified the sources. Let's start collecting agreements on the licensing: each of the above mentioned copyright holders, could you please tell (preferably with a OpenPGP-signed reply) whether you agree to license your contribution under the following terms? I'm not that list, but I agree with licensing my contributions under those terms. Javier signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#332782: Please explain the etch-ignore tag
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 17:21:10 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote: On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 12:49:49AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: [...] This is effectively a clarical error What do you mean by clarical? I'm sorry to ask, but I am not an English native speaker and no dictionary could help... clerical. Sorry, typo. Ah, understood: an error made in copying or writing, dict says. At any rate, it's a clerical error that has not yet been corrected... [...] Debian hardly (if ever) relies on implicit permission grants from third parties: That's not true. Lots of patches are committed, by our upstreams and by our developers, with only implicit grants. Ack (even though I think it would be far better to grant explicit licenses for patches, especially when the work they are based on is released under a non-copyleft license...). However I feel that the two scenarios are not comparable: when someone contributes a patch to be incorporated into a work, he/she can be assumed to be OK with the license of the work. On the other hand, a completely new work (such as the release notes) is not so convincingly implicitly licensed in a DFSG-free manner (under which specific license, anyway?) just because the general Debian documentation policy states that it will. [...] Where can I find a comprehensive list of individual contributors (whose contribution is creative enough to grant them a copyright interest in the work)? Are there any others besides the ones who are credited in the footer of the contents page[2]? I would suggest also checking the cvs log for the repository. Well, I've just noticed that there's no link to the _Release Notes_ source from the dedicated page[3]. This should be fixed as well, I think. [3] http://www.debian.org/releases/testing/releasenotes I suppose I can find the source here[4], but I would need confirmation before going on and possibly dig into the *wrong* source!! ;-) Even better: could you please suggest a command-line that I can use to checkout the source? [4] http://cvs.debian.org/ddp/manuals.sgml/release-notes/?cvsroot=debian-doc Any more practical way of getting the complete list of contributors? -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/etch_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian etch installation walk-through? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpcfaDxXpQJx.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#332782: Please explain the etch-ignore tag
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 09:12:54PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
I suppose I can find the source here[4], but I would need confirmation
before going on and possibly dig into the *wrong* source!! ;-)
Even better: could you please suggest a command-line that I can use
to checkout the source?
Yes, that's the source. As for a command line to check out the source see
http://www.debian.org/doc/ddp
[4] http://cvs.debian.org/ddp/manuals.sgml/release-notes/?cvsroot=debian-doc
Any more practical way of getting the complete list of contributors?
Yes:
$ grep author release-notes.ent,v en/release-notes.en.sgml,v |
awk '{print $4}' | sort | uniq -c | sort -n
[ slightly edited, for clarity ]
73 fjp - Frans Pop
43 jfs - Javier Fernandez-Sanguino (me)
36 robster - Rob Bradford
24 aba - Andreas Barth
19 jseidel - Jens Seidel
4 djpig- Frank Lichtenheld
3 fbothamy - Frédéric Bothamy
2 joy - Josip Rodin
1 spaillar - Simon Paillard
1 barbier - Denis Barbier
The number before the the (debian) login is the number of commits they made
to the source.
Regards
Javier
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Bug#332782: Please explain the etch-ignore tag
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 11:24:33PM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
Yes:
$ grep author release-notes.ent,v en/release-notes.en.sgml,v |
awk '{print $4}' | sort | uniq -c | sort -n
[ slightly edited, for clarity ]
73 fjp - Frans Pop
43 jfs - Javier Fernandez-Sanguino (me)
36 robster - Rob Bradford
24 aba - Andreas Barth
19 jseidel - Jens Seidel
4 djpig- Frank Lichtenheld
3 fbothamy - Frédéric Bothamy
2 joy - Josip Rodin
1 spaillar - Simon Paillard
1 barbier - Denis Barbier
The number before the the (debian) login is the number of commits they made
to the source.
That won't be comprehensive though, because there are a limited number of
authorized committers who often commit changes contributed by others.
Cheers,
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
Bug#332782: Please explain the etch-ignore tag
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 09:12:54PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: I would suggest also checking the cvs log for the repository. Well, I've just noticed that there's no link to the _Release Notes_ source from the dedicated page[3]. This should be fixed as well, I think. [3] http://www.debian.org/releases/testing/releasenotes I suppose I can find the source here[4], but I would need confirmation before going on and possibly dig into the *wrong* source!! ;-) Even better: could you please suggest a command-line that I can use to checkout the source? [4] http://cvs.debian.org/ddp/manuals.sgml/release-notes/?cvsroot=debian-doc cvs -d :pserver:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/cvs/debian-doc co ddp/manuals.sgml/release-notes followed by cvs log within the checkout tree. (and since it's cvs, you get a separate cvs log for every file in the tree, yay crappy...) -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#332782: Please explain the etch-ignore tag
On Thursday 22 March 2007 23:24, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
$ grep author release-notes.ent,v en/release-notes.en.sgml,v |
awk '{print $4}' | sort | uniq -c | sort -n
[ slightly edited, for clarity ]
73 fjp - Frans Pop
43 jfs - Javier Fernandez-Sanguino (me)
36 robster - Rob Bradford
24 aba - Andreas Barth
19 jseidel - Jens Seidel
4 djpig- Frank Lichtenheld
3 fbothamy - Frédéric Bothamy
2 joy - Josip Rodin
1 spaillar - Simon Paillard
1 barbier - Denis Barbier
The number before the the (debian) login is the number of commits they
made to the source.
Unfortunately committers are not the same as contributors. A lot more
people have contributed text to the release notes through mails to the
debian-doc mailing list and bug reports that were committed by the people
who have edited the release notes.
pgpoPGKElSb99.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Bug#332782: Please explain the etch-ignore tag
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 03:45:55PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 11:24:33PM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña
wrote:
Yes:
$ grep author release-notes.ent,v en/release-notes.en.sgml,v |
awk '{print $4}' | sort | uniq -c | sort -n
That won't be comprehensive though, because there are a limited number of
authorized committers who often commit changes contributed by others.
In this case it can be assumed that the log entry contains the
contributor(s). At least I added this information always.
Jens
Bug#332782: Please explain the etch-ignore tag
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 17:01:22 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote: On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 12:32:54AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: Hi, could you please explain why this bug has been granted an etch-ignore tag? Why is it not meaningfully an RC bug for etch? Is Debian going to have a release with *non-free* release notes? *Another* one?!? First of all, the release notes are not packaged; Policy 2.2.1, which you cited as the justification of your bug report, governs *packages* including in the 'main' component of the archive. SC#2 states, in part: | When we write new components of the Debian system, we will license | them in a manner consistent with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. I find it difficult to claim that the release notes, packaged or not, are *not* a component of the Debian system... BTW, why are the release notes not packaged? I'm not sure this is a good thing to keep as it is. Second, you've already cited, from http://www.debian.org/doc/docpolicy, a statement of intent that the release notes will be released under a DFSG-free license; and we have no reason to believe that the copyright holders (who are, um... a bunch of Debian developers) have any intention to do otherwise. But, as a matter of fact, this has not yet happened. This is effectively a clarical error What do you mean by clarical? I'm sorry to ask, but I am not an English native speaker and no dictionary could help... -- yes, it's unfortunate that we don't have a clear statement of the conditions under which people are allowed to reuse the release notes, but there is a clearly implicit grant of reproduction rights, since we ship these release notes on the Debian ISOs. Debian hardly (if ever) relies on implicit permission grants from third parties: why others should rely on Debian Project's implicit permission grants? Third, there is simply no reason that we should delay the etch release while each contributor is tracked down for sign-off on a licensing proposal. I filed the bug back on *October 2005*: there was plenty of time to address the issue without any risk to delay the etch release. Waiting for a release to be near and then tagging -ignore because we should not delay the release, sounds a bit awkward... If you want to see this bug resolved for etch, please: - propose a license on the debian-doc list I already proposed the GNU GPL v2 in my original bug report, which AFAICS has already been forwarded to debian-doc[1], since this list is the maintainer of the release-notes pseudo-package. We are currently talking on debian-doc, as well as on the bug log, AFAICT. [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-doc/2005/10/msg00021.html - once a consensus is reached there, contact individual contributors to the release notes requesting a license grant Where can I find a comprehensive list of individual contributors (whose contribution is creative enough to grant them a copyright interest in the work)? Are there any others besides the ones who are credited in the footer of the contents page[2]? [2] http://www.debian.org/releases/testing/i386/release-notes/index.en.html For the record, the credited ones are: * Josip Rodin * Bob Hilliard * Adam Di Carlo * Anne Bezemer * Rob Bradford (current) * Frans Pop (current) * Andreas Barth (current) Let's start collecting agreements on the licensing: each of the above mentioned copyright holders, could you please tell (preferably with a OpenPGP-signed reply) whether you agree to license your contribution under the following terms? Copyright (c) $YEARSTART-$YEAREND $NAME $EMAILADDRESS This work is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License, version 2, as published by the Free Software Foundation. This work is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for more details. You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with this work; if not, write to the Free Software Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA Please indicate the relevant years, name and (optional) e-mail address. P.S.: please reply to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and Cc: me, as well; thanks. -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/etch_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian etch installation walk-through? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpOYzkcoZYDC.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#332782: Please explain the etch-ignore tag
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 12:49:49AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: Second, you've already cited, from http://www.debian.org/doc/docpolicy, a statement of intent that the release notes will be released under a DFSG-free license; and we have no reason to believe that the copyright holders (who are, um... a bunch of Debian developers) have any intention to do otherwise. But, as a matter of fact, this has not yet happened. This is effectively a clarical error What do you mean by clarical? I'm sorry to ask, but I am not an English native speaker and no dictionary could help... clerical. Sorry, typo. -- yes, it's unfortunate that we don't have a clear statement of the conditions under which people are allowed to reuse the release notes, but there is a clearly implicit grant of reproduction rights, since we ship these release notes on the Debian ISOs. Debian hardly (if ever) relies on implicit permission grants from third parties: That's not true. Lots of patches are committed, by our upstreams and by our developers, with only implicit grants. - once a consensus is reached there, contact individual contributors to the release notes requesting a license grant Where can I find a comprehensive list of individual contributors (whose contribution is creative enough to grant them a copyright interest in the work)? Are there any others besides the ones who are credited in the footer of the contents page[2]? I would suggest also checking the cvs log for the repository. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#332782: Please explain the etch-ignore tag
Hi, could you please explain why this bug has been granted an etch-ignore tag? Why is it not meaningfully an RC bug for etch? Is Debian going to have a release with *non-free* release notes? *Another* one?!? -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/etch_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian etch installation walk-through? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpjNcOPgBNW4.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#332782: Please explain the etch-ignore tag
On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 12:32:54AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: Hi, could you please explain why this bug has been granted an etch-ignore tag? Why is it not meaningfully an RC bug for etch? Is Debian going to have a release with *non-free* release notes? *Another* one?!? First of all, the release notes are not packaged; Policy 2.2.1, which you cited as the justification of your bug report, governs *packages* including in the 'main' component of the archive. Second, you've already cited, from http://www.debian.org/doc/docpolicy, a statement of intent that the release notes will be released under a DFSG-free license; and we have no reason to believe that the copyright holders (who are, um... a bunch of Debian developers) have any intention to do otherwise. This is effectively a clarical error -- yes, it's unfortunate that we don't have a clear statement of the conditions under which people are allowed to reuse the release notes, but there is a clearly implicit grant of reproduction rights, since we ship these release notes on the Debian ISOs. Third, there is simply no reason that we should delay the etch release while each contributor is tracked down for sign-off on a licensing proposal. If you want to see this bug resolved for etch, please: - propose a license on the debian-doc list - once a consensus is reached there, contact individual contributors to the release notes requesting a license grant -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
