Re: Please retire extras.ubuntu.com
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 06:26:54PM +, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote: > At the moment do-release-upgrade -d from utopic -> vivid is failing > because extras.ubuntu.com repository does not exist for vivid, it's > failing to fetch and thus upgrade is aborted becase of "possible > network problems". > > Can we please stop adding extras.ubuntu.com by default? Not consider > it's absence as failure to upgrade Ubuntu? Have it in apt.sources.d/* > instead of apt.sources? > > Quantal appears to be the last release that had extras.ubuntu.com. > > Unless there are any objects I'll remove extras.ubuntu.com from new > installations and will seek SRU to trusty and up to drop > extras.ubuntu.com from the apt.sources. > > -- > Regards, > > Dimitri. This was discussed by the Technical Board earlier this cycle and we indeed agreed to retire extras.ubuntu.com. I believe I've got the action to do the actual changes to get it off new installations and upgrades to vivid but have been pretty busy with other things so far, so any help is very much welcome! For the record, the plan is to remove it from the default sources.list, from software-properties and from any sources.list template that we generate at installation time. Then do a change to the upgrader to remove it for people upgrading to vivid. SRUs would be nice but aren't strictly needed (other than what's needed for the upgrader) as extras.ubuntu.com will remain online until trusty goes EOL in April 2019 at which point we'll kill of the web server entirely. -- Stéphane Graber Ubuntu developer http://www.ubuntu.com signature.asc Description: Digital signature -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: [Ubuntu-bugcontrol] Please, consider reflecting on the Canonical Contributor Agreement
On 10 January 2015 at 18:19, Michael Banck wrote: > On Mon, Jan 05, 2015 at 10:01:49AM -0500, Stephen M. Webb wrote: >> Maybe. I contributed small patches to GCC for years before taking the >> leap and signing my soul over to the FSF so I could get them to accept >> more substantial pieces of work (and they could relicense it to third >> parties to earn revenue). > > My understanding of the FSF/GNU copyright assignment is that in their > part of the legal paperwork, they pledge to only relicense the code > under a license of similar spirit. So the above is FUD AFAICT. > > Now if you don't trust the FSF that much that you think GPLv4 will be a > proprietary license, then maybe your above statement makes sense. > > OTOH, if you haven't understood the FSF/GNU copyright assignment, it > might explain why you seem to be oblivious to other people's > reservations with the Canonical CLA. There is a wide amount of people who have the view that GPLv3 was not in spirit of GPLv2 and should have been given a new/different name instead. Also the GFDL 1.3 is totally not in-spirit of previous GFDL revisions and allows re-licence under CC-BY-SA 3.0 for a subset of 1.2 licensed things. Similarly the whole "Invariant Sections" bits are completely not in-spirit of the free software. Out of all the things that FSF do, "publishing revisions of their licenses of similar spirit" is that bit that they consistently fail to deliver. Above points however are simply against FSF and that it's own copyright assignment is just as horrible. GNU project however, does not require copyright assignment to FSF, it requires a copyright assignment to an entity. E.g. GNU bazaar-ng holder is Canonical. -- Regards, Dimitri. -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Please retire extras.ubuntu.com
At the moment do-release-upgrade -d from utopic -> vivid is failing because extras.ubuntu.com repository does not exist for vivid, it's failing to fetch and thus upgrade is aborted becase of "possible network problems". Can we please stop adding extras.ubuntu.com by default? Not consider it's absence as failure to upgrade Ubuntu? Have it in apt.sources.d/* instead of apt.sources? Quantal appears to be the last release that had extras.ubuntu.com. Unless there are any objects I'll remove extras.ubuntu.com from new installations and will seek SRU to trusty and up to drop extras.ubuntu.com from the apt.sources. -- Regards, Dimitri. -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: [Ubuntu-bugcontrol] Please, consider reflecting on the Canonical Contributor Agreement
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 09:52:49AM -0500, Stephen M. Webb wrote: > On 01/10/2015 01:19 PM, Michael Banck wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 05, 2015 at 10:01:49AM -0500, Stephen M. Webb wrote: > > > > My understanding of the FSF/GNU copyright assignment is that in their > > part of the legal paperwork, they pledge to only relicense the code > > under a license of similar spirit. So the above is FUD AFAICT. > > Selling GPL exceptions is not disapproved of by RMS or the FSF; in fact they > have even enouraged it. Consider reading > Richard Stallman's essay on this at the FSF [1]. > > It is not FUD to say they could practice what they preach, not is it not FUD > to point out they require total transfer of > ownership of the copyright (which mean, in my country, extinguishment of my > own rights as author) as opposed to the > Canonical CLA, which only requires a license for the same rights the author > continues to enjoy. Those are simple facts > backed up by what the FSF themselves say publicly. > > [1] https://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/selling-exceptions > > -- > Stephen M. Webb Stephen, you should re-read what you link to. If FSF wants to allow others to embed their work in proprietary software, they don't sell an exception, they use a permissive licens: To quote: there are occasional cases where, for specific reasons of strategy, we decide that using a more permissive license on a certain program is better for the cause of freedom. In those cases, we release the program to everyone under that permissive license. This is because of another ethical principle that the FSF follows: to treat all users the same. An idealistic campaign for freedom should not discriminate, so the FSF is committed to giving the same license to all users. The FSF never sells exceptions; whatever license or licenses we release a program under, that is available to everyone. Neal McBurnett http://neal.mcburnett.org/ -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: [Ubuntu-bugcontrol] Please, consider reflecting on the Canonical Contributor Agreement
On 01/10/2015 01:19 PM, Michael Banck wrote: > On Mon, Jan 05, 2015 at 10:01:49AM -0500, Stephen M. Webb wrote: > > My understanding of the FSF/GNU copyright assignment is that in their > part of the legal paperwork, they pledge to only relicense the code > under a license of similar spirit. So the above is FUD AFAICT. Selling GPL exceptions is not disapproved of by RMS or the FSF; in fact they have even enouraged it. Consider reading Richard Stallman's essay on this at the FSF [1]. It is not FUD to say they could practice what they preach, not is it not FUD to point out they require total transfer of ownership of the copyright (which mean, in my country, extinguishment of my own rights as author) as opposed to the Canonical CLA, which only requires a license for the same rights the author continues to enjoy. Those are simple facts backed up by what the FSF themselves say publicly. [1] https://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/selling-exceptions -- Stephen M. Webb -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
