On 2021-03-12 at 05:32, Arto Jantunen wrote: > The Wanderer <wande...@fastmail.fm> writes:
>> Neither of these things is new; they were true of the last version >> prior to the removal, and possibly of some versions prior to that >> as well. That makes this a bit aggravating. >> >> Still, I suppose that just means they slipped through the cracks of >> the less-stringent copyright review that's applied to packages >> already in the archive, rather than that they shouldn't need to be >> addressed... > > There is no systematic copyright review happening for packages that > are already in the archive (unless they add new binary packages and > end up in the NEW queue that way). I'm personally not a fan of how > this currently works in Debian, but "so there has ever been and ever > will be". Oh, I'm aware. The lack of systematic copyright review just means that what review does get applied is "whatever anyone who happens to be looking at the package happens to notice and cares to point out", which is clearly less stringent than what is applied at NEW time. ^_^ >> For examples/completion, it's not clear whether or not documenting >> the copyright statement would be enough. No specific license is >> stated for that file, so it's not clear what license Etienne PIERRE >> (whom I infer to be its original author, prior to later changes >> introduced by Daniel Pearson) would have intended for it. > > The completion script was actually provided through Debian initially > and then later included upstream: > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=184633 > > This initial submission includes a copyright statement, but no > license. Not asking for one was clearly my mistake. The advantages of incumbent, institutional-style knowledge! It wouldn't even have occurred to me to check for that sort of thing. > We might as well just remove it for now, we can easily bring it back > if we can come up with a plausible story about the licensing > situation. If you think that's OK for the package (and its users, who may or may not care about completion), then I'm fine with it for the moment. Would this call for an upstream release dropping the file, or are you OK with excluding it from what gets installed as part of the package? -- The Wanderer The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
