On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 11:33:32PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Now, some of the objections you have heard is because of the
hard line you have been taking in this discussion about looking for
and adding copyright holders is not, as far as I can see, reflected in
current policy.
Hi Manoj,
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
o) It should name the original authors -- which, in my view, is
distinct from every subsequent contributor. This can bea matter of
subjective interpretation, though.
Allow me to disagree. While in common language original can be used in
the sense
The real problem here is that FTP masters require the list of copyright
holders to be up-to-date each time the package goes through NEW.
Whatever justification exists for this requirement, I???m starting to find
it unacceptable. If a package has to go through NEW, it takes about
twice as
On Sat, Mar 21 2009, Noah Slater wrote:
I only maintain a small number of packages, but even then, I have
regularly found files contained within those packages which were
included for various reasons by upstream under a different license. In
the case of planet-venus, I remove a not
On Sat, Mar 21 2009, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
Hi Manoj,
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
o) It should name the original authors -- which, in my view, is
distinct from every subsequent contributor. This can bea matter of
subjective interpretation, though.
Allow me to disagree. While in
la, 2009-03-21 kello 15:04 +0100, Joerg Jaspert kirjoitti:
We require, and have seen nothing to convince us otherwise, that
Debian
maintainers need to do the basic work of listing each copyright holder in
debian/copyright, as seen in the source files and AUTHORS list or
equivalent (if any).
On Sat, Mar 21 2009, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
The real problem here is that FTP masters require the list of copyright
holders to be up-to-date each time the package goes through NEW.
Whatever justification exists for this requirement, I???m starting to find
it unacceptable. If a package has to go
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 04:25:36PM +0200, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
la, 2009-03-21 kello 15:04 +0100, Joerg Jaspert kirjoitti:
We require, and have seen nothing to convince us otherwise, that
Debian
maintainers need to do the basic work of listing each copyright holder in
debian/copyright, as
Le Saturday 21 March 2009 15:42:35 Manoj Srivastava, vous avez écrit :
Now, it might be perfectly fine for the ftp team to impose such
restrictions on packages, and create their own policy; but please at
least say so, and do not hide being hand waving of either copyright law
Joerg Jaspert jo...@debian.org writes:
We require, and have seen nothing to convince us otherwise, that Debian
maintainers need to do the basic work of listing each copyright holder
in debian/copyright, as seen in the source files and AUTHORS list or
equivalent (if any).
So, the question
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 02:57:34PM +0100, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
Allow me to disagree. While in common language original can be used in
the sense of initial as your interpretation seems to suggest, this is
clearly and consistently not the case in the context of copyright. In
fact, original
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 03:04:32PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Even the GPL tells you to. § 4. Conveying Verbatim Copies (which is then
mentioned in the source/binary paragraphs):
--8schnipp-8---
You may convey verbatim copies of the Program's
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 10:29:35PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
Is there actually packages that does not use debconf ?
The one I'm involved with is base-passwd; but it only doesn't use
debconf because I've been putting off dealing with figuring out how to
convert it over (since it ideally ought
Joerg Jaspert jo...@debian.org writes:
We require, and have seen nothing to convince us otherwise, that Debian
maintainers need to do the basic work of listing each copyright holder in
debian/copyright, as seen in the source files and AUTHORS list or
equivalent (if any).
Is this requirement
Noah Slater nsla...@tumbolia.org writes:
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 12:15:00PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Is the reason that you feel most licenses require preservation of the
copyright notice and it's easier to enforce it uniformly for all
copyright files? Is there some other larger reason why
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 09:42:35AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Why do they have to? I know, the ftp team made it up. But there
is no reason in policy or in copyright law for such copying to
occur. But it would be nice to know why it is needed.
I can think of a few desirable
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 12:15:00PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Is the reason that you feel most licenses require preservation of the
copyright notice and it's easier to enforce it uniformly for all copyright
files? Is there some other larger reason why is this important for the
project?
Noah Slater nsla...@tumbolia.org writes:
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 08:07:23PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
NEW rejections are even stronger than an RC bug. Apart from questions
of whether that's useful documentation for users, I have a hard time
seeing either of your reasons stated above as
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 08:07:23PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
NEW rejections are even stronger than an RC bug. Apart from questions of
whether that's useful documentation for users, I have a hard time seeing
either of your reasons stated above as being RC-level bugs.
You don't think that
19 matches
Mail list logo
