On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 11:27:44AM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> In lenny we have none such packages that I know of. How about we start to
> make policy when there's a real problem to be solved, and spend our time
> fixing RC bugs meanwhile?

of course, but the issue came up because of the mozilla change, and
making such a policy decision at a time when it does not mean reverting
some big package back to an older version. think of it as a
regression...

cu robert

--
Robert Lemmen http://www.semistable.com


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 11:41:57AM +0100, Robert Lemmen <robertle@semistable.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 11:27:44AM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> > In lenny we have none such packages that I know of. How about we start to
> > make policy when there's a real problem to be solved, and spend our time
> > fixing RC bugs meanwhile?
>
> of course, but the issue came up because of the mozilla change, and
> making such a policy decision at a time when it does not mean reverting
> some big package back to an older version. think of it as a
> regression...

Except the mozilla change has been caught early in Debian and the EULA
never showed up to users, with or without mozilla reverting their change.

Mike


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

about click-through EULAs:

On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 12:16:17PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > It makes sense. The same way that we're not allowing GFDL packages
> > with invariant sections, we might not want this feature/bug of GPL to
> > be used for that either. I would support making such a decision.
>
> I would support it too, provided that it's tied to a policy decision not
> to accept works licensed under the AGPL into main.

please forgive my ignorance, but i don't understand what the AGPL has to
do with click-through license agreements. could you explain?

cu robert

--
Robert Lemmen http://www.semistable.com

On 2008-09-18 19:19, Robert Lemmen wrote:
> while the EULA topic is already being discussed:

Where is it already discussed? At least not on d-d, as far as I can
see/find...

Thanks,

Johannes

NB: Google finds only some ubuntu discussions for me...

On Fri, Sep 19 2008, Miriam Ruiz wrote:

> 2008/9/19 Michael Banck <mbanck@debian.org>:
>
>>> The GPL version 2 permits it to display copyright notices and warranty
>>> disclaimers, without being allowed to patch them away. This can be made
>>> more obnoxious than one-time click-through EULAs, I fear.
>>
>> That doesn't mean we should accept those in our distribution. We can
>> make a policy decision that end-users should not have to deal with
>> those.
>
> It makes sense. The same way that we're not allowing GFDL packages
> with invariant sections, we might not want this feature/bug of GPL to
> be used for that either. I would support making such a decision.

Except that policy says nothing about actual licenses. It refers
to the DFSG, and tells people to ask debian-legal (heh). The policy
document is "technical" policy, and leaves non-technical stuff like
what is free or not to foundation documents (and debian-legal).

For example, it mentions nothing about gfdl and invariant bits.

manoj
--
You may my glories and my state dispose, But not my griefs; still am I
king of those.-- William Shakespeare, "Richard II"
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

"Thijs Kinkhorst" <thijs@debian.org> writes:
> On Fri, September 19, 2008 11:25, Michael Banck wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 01:58:03AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
>
>>> The GPL version 2 permits it to display copyright notices and warranty
>>> disclaimers, without being allowed to patch them away. This can be
>>> made more obnoxious than one-time click-through EULAs, I fear.

>> That doesn't mean we should accept those in our distribution. We can
>> make a policy decision that end-users should not have to deal with
>> those.

> In lenny we have none such packages that I know of. How about we start
> to make policy when there's a real problem to be solved, and spend our
> time fixing RC bugs meanwhile?

Uh, I can name several that use that aspect of the GPL just off the top of
my head. (bc and Emacs, for example.)

--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

On Friday 19 September 2008 20:31, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > In lenny we have none such packages that I know of. How about we start
> > to make policy when there's a real problem to be solved, and spend our
> > time fixing RC bugs meanwhile?
>
> Uh, I can name several that use that aspect of the GPL just off the top of
> my head. *(bc and Emacs, for example.)

Perhaps I interpreted the original posters different than you did, namely
something that needs explicit action to acknowledge.


Thijs


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

* Russ Allbery:

>> In lenny we have none such packages that I know of. How about we start
>> to make policy when there's a real problem to be solved, and spend our
>> time fixing RC bugs meanwhile?
>
> Uh, I can name several that use that aspect of the GPL just off the top of
> my head. (bc and Emacs, for example.)

I think this was lost for both programs in the transition to GPL version
3. The currently displayed message is not an "Appropriate Legal Notice"
in the sense of section of 0 because neither message states that you may
convey the program under the GPL version 3 (though Emacs in TTY mode is
pretty close).


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org