[Python-modules-team] Bug#709138: Bug report contains non-free content and cannot be processed
On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 12:16:19 PM Jakub Wilk wrote: Hi Scott! What do you mean by non-free content? The reporter specified the bug report was covered by non-free license. ___ Python-modules-team mailing list Python-modules-team@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/python-modules-team
[Python-modules-team] Bug#709138: Bug report contains non-free content and cannot be processed
* Scott Kitterman sc...@kitterman.com, 2013-05-21, 06:20: What do you mean by non-free content? The reporter specified the bug report was covered by non-free license. Oh come on. Sure, it's silly to release a bug report under a non-free license. But if we suddenly start caring about bug report licences, then we might as well shut down the whole BTS, as the vast majority of submissions don't come with any license at all. -- Jakub Wilk ___ Python-modules-team mailing list Python-modules-team@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/python-modules-team
Re: [Python-modules-team] Bug#709138: Bug report contains non-free content and cannot be processed
On 2013-05-21 09:59, Jakub Wilk wrote: * Scott Kitterman sc...@kitterman.com, 2013-05-21, 06:20: What do you mean by non-free content? The reporter specified the bug report was covered by non-free license. Oh come on. Sure, it's silly to release a bug report under a non-free license. But if we suddenly start caring about bug report licences, then we might as well shut down the whole BTS, as the vast majority of submissions don't come with any license at all. I am not a laywer, but this is my opinion. Under most definitions of copyright, a bug report's copyright belongs to its author. We host them in the BTS at their request, so I don't believe we need any further license. However if a poster asked to have their material removed, I think we'd be obligated to remove it. ___ Python-modules-team mailing list Python-modules-team@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/python-modules-team
Re: [Python-modules-team] Bug#709138: Bug report contains non-free content and cannot be processed
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 12:15:33PM -0700, Clint Byrum wrote: I am not a laywer, but this is my opinion. Under most definitions of copyright, a bug report's copyright belongs to its author. We host them in the BTS at their request, so I don't believe we need any further license. However if a poster asked to have their material removed, I think we'd be obligated to remove it. Not unlike how GitHub will host things that are non-free, so long as they can redistribute it. I think that's jwilk's point. In fact, I'd argue CC-BY-NC 3.0 is *more* permissive then most text. In fact, if someone remixed my text, I'm not sure how I'd feel about it. Cheers, Paul -- .''`. Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org : :' : Proud Debian Developer `. `'` 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352 D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87 `- http://people.debian.org/~paultag signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Python-modules-team mailing list Python-modules-team@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/python-modules-team
Re: [Python-modules-team] Bug#709138: Bug report contains non-free content and cannot be processed
On 05/21/2013 03:15 PM, Clint Byrum wrote: On 2013-05-21 09:59, Jakub Wilk wrote: * Scott Kitterman sc...@kitterman.com, 2013-05-21, 06:20: What do you mean by non-free content? The reporter specified the bug report was covered by non-free license. Oh come on. Sure, it's silly to release a bug report under a non-free license. But if we suddenly start caring about bug report licences, then we might as well shut down the whole BTS, as the vast majority of submissions don't come with any license at all. I am not a laywer, but this is my opinion. Under most definitions of copyright, a bug report's copyright belongs to its author. We host them in the BTS at their request, so I don't believe we need any further license. However if a poster asked to have their material removed, I think we'd be obligated to remove it. For clarity: the original poster of #709138 asked no such thing; the poster merely asserted a CC BY-NC license in the .sig of their e-mail. Despite the fact that i find the NC clause troublingly vague (and undoubtably non-dfsg-free), CC BY-NC is clearly no worse than the overwhelming majority of bug reports which come with no license information at all. Debian does not demand that bug reports themselves be DFSG-free, and closing a bug report due to non-DFSG-free licensing of the bug report itself seems silly to me. Don't we want to fix bugs? how can we do that if we don't know about or acknowledge them? let's support our users and appreciate them when they report problems; this is how debian gets better. Thank you Jakub for identifying the technical problem that needed fixing here. :) --dkg signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Python-modules-team mailing list Python-modules-team@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/python-modules-team
Re: [Python-modules-team] Bug#709138: Bug report contains non-free content and cannot be processed
On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 03:30:06 PM Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: On 05/21/2013 03:15 PM, Clint Byrum wrote: On 2013-05-21 09:59, Jakub Wilk wrote: * Scott Kitterman sc...@kitterman.com, 2013-05-21, 06:20: What do you mean by non-free content? The reporter specified the bug report was covered by non-free license. Oh come on. Sure, it's silly to release a bug report under a non-free license. But if we suddenly start caring about bug report licences, then we might as well shut down the whole BTS, as the vast majority of submissions don't come with any license at all. I am not a laywer, but this is my opinion. Under most definitions of copyright, a bug report's copyright belongs to its author. We host them in the BTS at their request, so I don't believe we need any further license. However if a poster asked to have their material removed, I think we'd be obligated to remove it. For clarity: the original poster of #709138 asked no such thing; the poster merely asserted a CC BY-NC license in the .sig of their e-mail. No, they said, My quotes in this email licensed under ... I read that as anything they typed. That said, I agree there's no obligation to remove. If they didn't want it published in the BTS, then they shouldn't have sent it there. Despite the fact that i find the NC clause troublingly vague (and undoubtably non-dfsg-free), CC BY-NC is clearly no worse than the overwhelming majority of bug reports which come with no license information at all. Debian does not demand that bug reports themselves be DFSG-free, and closing a bug report due to non-DFSG-free licensing of the bug report itself seems silly to me. Don't we want to fix bugs? how can we do that if we don't know about or acknowledge them? I think this sort of thing is obnoxious and annoying and what I did is point out behavior inconsistent with our values. Marking the report closed does not also require forgetting about the issue raised. Love the bug, not the bug report. let's support our users and appreciate them when they report problems; this is how debian gets better. Yes, but ... I think obnoxiousness in bug reports should not be ignored either. Thank you Jakub for identifying the technical problem that needed fixing here. :) Agreed (and in case you're wondering, I did plan to actually look at it later in the week - I felt I took on that responsibility when I closed the bug - Jakub saved me the work and I appreciate it). Scott K ___ Python-modules-team mailing list Python-modules-team@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/python-modules-team
Re: [Python-modules-team] Bug#709138: Bug report contains non-free content and cannot be processed
On 05/21/2013 10:23 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 03:30:06 PM Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: For clarity: the original poster of #709138 asked no such thing; the poster merely asserted a CC BY-NC license in the .sig of their e-mail. No, they said, My quotes in this email licensed under ... I read that as anything they typed. I don't think we're actually in disagreement on these factual matters, so i am not sure what your No, is about. I think this sort of thing is obnoxious and annoying and what I did is point out behavior inconsistent with our values. Marking the report closed does not also require forgetting about the issue raised. Love the bug, not the bug report. i'm sorry, but i think you are mistaken about the nature of the BTS. http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer#closing clearly says: Debian bug reports should be closed when the problem is fixed. Problems in packages can only be considered fixed once a package that includes the bug fix enters the Debian archive. This criterion was not met. The bug report should not have been closed. Yes, but ... I think obnoxiousness in bug reports should not be ignored either. Sure, and if you had politely pointed the bug reporter to one of the many places where reasonable people have taken apart the CC NC clause, and explained why it might not be effective at promoting the freedoms we all want to see expanded, that would have been a perfectly reasonable response. Regards, --dkg signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Python-modules-team mailing list Python-modules-team@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/python-modules-team
Re: [Python-modules-team] Bug#709138: Bug report contains non-free content and cannot be processed
On Wednesday, May 22, 2013 12:57:45 AM Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: On 05/21/2013 10:23 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 03:30:06 PM Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: For clarity: the original poster of #709138 asked no such thing; the poster merely asserted a CC BY-NC license in the .sig of their e-mail. No, they said, My quotes in this email licensed under ... I read that as anything they typed. I don't think we're actually in disagreement on these factual matters, so i am not sure what your No, is about. I guess I misread then. I thought you were saying they only asserted the license against the .sig. I think this sort of thing is obnoxious and annoying and what I did is point out behavior inconsistent with our values. Marking the report closed does not also require forgetting about the issue raised. Love the bug, not the bug report. i'm sorry, but i think you are mistaken about the nature of the BTS. http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer#closing clearly says: Debian bug reports should be closed when the problem is fixed. Problems in packages can only be considered fixed once a package that includes the bug fix enters the Debian archive. This criterion was not met. The bug report should not have been closed. I can agree with this. Yes, but ... I think obnoxiousness in bug reports should not be ignored either. Sure, and if you had politely pointed the bug reporter to one of the many places where reasonable people have taken apart the CC NC clause, and explained why it might not be effective at promoting the freedoms we all want to see expanded, that would have been a perfectly reasonable response. I don't know how to explain my feelings about this in a way that wouldn't be escalatory, which I don't think is needed. I agree closing the bug wasn't the best way to deal with it. Scott K ___ Python-modules-team mailing list Python-modules-team@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/python-modules-team
