Hello Russ,
Thank you for working on this.
On Sat 09 Sep 2023 at 08:35pm -07, Russ Allbery wrote:
> In order to structure the discussion and prod people into thinking about
> the implications, I will make the following straw man proposal. This is
> what I would do if the decision was entirely
Hopefully I'm not too late and I hope I won't make any ('dumb') mistakes as
I'm not as well-versed in licenses and packaging as other participants.
On Sunday, 10 September 2023 18:16:07 CEST Russ Allbery wrote:
> > * The license is DFSG-free.
> > * Exactly the same license wording is used by all
On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 10:49:02AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> To take an example that I've been trying to get rid of for over a decade,
> many of the /usr/share/common-licenses/BSD references currently in the
> archive are incorrect. There are a few cases where the code is literally
>
Jonas Smedegaard writes:
> Strictly speaking it is not (as I was more narrowly focusing on) that
> the current debian/copyright spec leaves room for *ambiguity*, but
> instead that there is a real risk of making mistakes when replacing with
> centrally defined ones (e.g. redefining a local
Quoting Russ Allbery (2023-09-12 18:15:27)
> Jonas Smedegaard writes:
>
> > If you mean to say that ambiguous MIT declarations exist in
> > debian/copyright files written using the machine-readable format, then
> > please point to an example, as I cannot imagine how that would look.
>
> I can
Jonas Smedegaard writes:
> If you mean to say that ambiguous MIT declarations exist in
> debian/copyright files written using the machine-readable format, then
> please point to an example, as I cannot imagine how that would look.
I can see it: people use License: Expat but then include some
Quoting Hideki Yamane (2023-09-12 09:27:12)
> On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 18:29:36 +0200
> Bill Allombert wrote:
> > Or we could generate DEBIAN/copyright from debian/copyright using data in
> > license-common-list at build time. So maintainers would not need to manage
> > the copying
> > themselves.
>
Hi,
On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 18:29:36 +0200
Bill Allombert wrote:
> Or we could generate DEBIAN/copyright from debian/copyright using data in
> license-common-list at build time. So maintainers would not need to manage
> the copying
> themselves.
One problem is, that some software declares that
Quoting Russ Allbery (2023-09-10 23:24:24)
> Jonas Smedegaard writes:
>
> > I have so far worked the most on identifying and grouping source data,
> > putting only little attention (yet - but do dream big...) towards
> > parsing and processing debian/copyright files e.g. to compare and assess
>
Jonas Smedegaard writes:
> I have so far worked the most on identifying and grouping source data,
> putting only little attention (yet - but do dream big...) towards
> parsing and processing debian/copyright files e.g. to compare and assess
> how well aligned the file is with the content it is
Quoting Russ Allbery (2023-09-10 21:41:59)
> Jeremy Stanley writes:
>
> > I'm surprised, for example, by the absence of the ISC license given that
> > not only ISC's software but much of that originating from the OpenBSD
> > ecosystem uses it. My personal software projects also use the ISC
> >
* Russ Allbery [2023-09-10 09:16]:
In order to structure the discussion and prod people into thinking about
the implications, I will make the following straw man proposal. This is
what I would do if the decision was entirely up to me:
Licenses will be included in common-licenses if they
Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues writes:
> I very much like this idea. The main reason maintainers want more
> licenses in /usr/share/common-licenses/ is so that they do not anymore
> have humongous d/copyright files with all license texts copypasted over
> and over again. If long texts could be
At 2023-09-10T21:47:36+0200, Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues wrote:
> Quoting Bill Allombert (2023-09-10 18:29:36)
> > On Sun, Sep 10, 2023 at 09:00:22AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > > Jonas Smedegaard writes:
> > > >> Hmm, how about providing license-common package and that
> > > >> depends
Hi,
Quoting Bill Allombert (2023-09-10 18:29:36)
> On Sun, Sep 10, 2023 at 09:00:22AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Jonas Smedegaard writes:
> > > Quoting Hideki Yamane (2023-09-10 11:00:07)
> > >> Hmm, how about providing license-common package and that depends on
> > >>
On 2023-09-09 20:35:27 -0700 (-0700), Russ Allbery wrote:
[...]
> Finally, as promised, here is the count of source packages in
> unstable that use the set of licenses that I taught my script to
> look for. This is likely not accurate; the script uses a bunch of
> heuristics and guesswork.
[...]
Jeremy Stanley writes:
> I'm surprised, for example, by the absence of the ISC license given that
> not only ISC's software but much of that originating from the OpenBSD
> ecosystem uses it. My personal software projects also use the ISC
> license. Are you aggregating the "License:" field in
Quoting Russ Allbery (2023-09-10 18:16:07)
> Russ Allbery writes:
>
> > In order to structure the discussion and prod people into thinking about
> > the implications, I will make the following straw man proposal. This is
> > what I would do if the decision was entirely up to me:
>
> >
On Sun, Sep 10, 2023 at 09:00:22AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Jonas Smedegaard writes:
> > Quoting Hideki Yamane (2023-09-10 11:00:07)
>
> >> Hmm, how about providing license-common package and that depends on
> >> "license-common-list", and ISO image provides both, then? It would be
> >>
Russ Allbery writes:
> In order to structure the discussion and prod people into thinking about
> the implications, I will make the following straw man proposal. This is
> what I would do if the decision was entirely up to me:
> Licenses will be included in common-licenses if they meet all
Jonas Smedegaard writes:
> Quoting Hideki Yamane (2023-09-10 11:00:07)
>> Hmm, how about providing license-common package and that depends on
>> "license-common-list", and ISO image provides both, then? It would be
>> no regressions.
I do wonder why we've never done this. Does anyone know?
On Sun, 10 Sept 2023 at 04:36, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Licenses will be included in common-licenses if they meet all of the
> following criteria:
>
> * The license is DFSG-free.
> * Exactly the same license wording is used by all works covered by it.
> * The license applies to
On Sat, 09 Sep 2023 20:35:27 -0700
Russ Allbery wrote:
> Licenses will be included in common-licenses if they meet all of the
> following criteria:
How about just pointing SPDX licenses URL for whole license text and
lists DFSG-free licenses from that? (but yes, we should adjust short
Quoting Hideki Yamane (2023-09-10 11:00:07)
> On Sat, 09 Sep 2023 22:41:48 -0700
> Russ Allbery wrote:
> > > How about just pointing SPDX licenses URL for whole license text and
> > > lists DFSG-free licenses from that? (but yes, we should adjust short
> > > name of licenses for DEP-5 and SPDX
On Sep 10, Enrico Zini wrote:
> I like this. I'd say that even if a license is shorter than 25 lines I'd
> appreciate to be able to link to it instead of copypasting it.
Me too.
> I like to be able to fill the license field with a value, after checking
> that the upstream license didn't diverge
On Sat, 09 Sep 2023 22:41:48 -0700
Russ Allbery wrote:
> > How about just pointing SPDX licenses URL for whole license text and
> > lists DFSG-free licenses from that? (but yes, we should adjust short
> > name of licenses for DEP-5 and SPDX for it).
>
> Can we do this legally? If we can, it
Hideki Yamane writes:
> Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Licenses will be included in common-licenses if they meet all of the
>> following criteria:
> How about just pointing SPDX licenses URL for whole license text and
> lists DFSG-free licenses from that? (but yes, we should adjust short
>
On Sat, Sep 09, 2023 at 08:35:27PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Licenses will be included in common-licenses if they meet all of the
> following criteria:
>
> * The license is DFSG-free.
> * Exactly the same license wording is used by all works covered by it.
> * The license
Quoting Russ Allbery (2023-09-10 05:35:27)
> In order to structure the discussion and prod people into thinking about
> the implications, I will make the following straw man proposal. This is
> what I would do if the decision was entirely up to me:
>
> Licenses will be included in
Hello everyone,
I come seeking your opinions. Please cc 885...@bugs.debian.org on replies
so that we can accumulate this discussion in a Debian Policy bug.
One of the responsibilities of the Policy Editors is to determine which
licenses should be included in /usr/share/common-licenses, and thus
30 matches
Mail list logo
