On 2012.11.25 13:44, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > >>>>> On Sun, 25 Nov 2012, hasufell wrote: > > > License issues seem trivial enough (at least regarding the > > functionality of an ebuild) to be fixed without permission of the > > actual maintainer. > > Certainly there are trivial license issues, but not all of them are. > See bugs 436452 and 441734 for trivial examples, and bugs 440938 and > 444412 for non-trivial ones. I think that it's better if bugs are > filed for the second category, so that the change will be traceable. > Also the maintainer should at least be informed in case the LICENSE > change would remove the package from the @FREE license group. > > > Even if the fix is wrong the ebuild remains intact. > > > If someone feels uncomfortable about this proposal we could limit > > this permission to the license herd. > > > Less bugs, quicker fixes. > > For the remaining trivial cases I'm fine with it either way. And > there's no reason to limit the permission to the licenses team. > > Ulrich > >
From the point of view of the licencor, the licence is just as important as the code, so there are no trivial licence issues. As a trustee, I am unhappy with losing the traceability at all. Other trustees may have different opinions. What seems trivial today, may not be trivial tomorrow if a licencor gets upset. -- Regards, Roy Bamford (Neddyseagoon) a member of elections gentoo-ops forum-mods trustees
pgpnkQh05fT1u.pgp
Description: PGP signature
