Hey man, stop throwing away your money
Hey man, stop throwing away your money http://www.prumie.net/ss/ Wanna be more man? Check this dude -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Inconsistent handling of sourceless packages in main
Hi, there are a number of packages in main that contain the actual source code for their binaries in the package itself. Instead those packages rely on other packages to supply source or prebuild binaries. The handling of those packages is inconsisten across the various packages and, every now and then, even violates the GPL (sources are missing). One package (debian-installer) gets away without source while another (ia32-libs) has to carry a huge bloat around for GPL compliance. The handling of them is incosistent and unsatisfactory. Namely I know about the following cases: (probably incomplete) package | handling -+-- kernel-image*| Build-Depends kernel-source* linux-kernel-di* | downloads kernel-image debs kernel-modules | Build-Depends on kernel-headers ia32-libs| include prebuild debs and source debian-installer | downloads udebs and uses installed binaries And all have problems: package | danger -+-- kernel-image*| kernel-source* update replaces source | rebuild differs | but old version is retrievable through included patches | linux-kernel-di* | kernel-source* update replaces source (see above), | kernel-image updates make rebuilds differ | kernel-modules | kernel-image* updates replaces source (arch patches) | rebuild differs | GPL VIOLATION | ia32-libs| huge bloat of the source. 215MB source, 12MB deb | debian-installer | source updates replace source, rebuilds differ | GPL VIOLATIONS IMHO debian-installer in unacceptable as it causes GPL violations. Interlocking the debian-installer builds with the exact source versions used during build is impractical at best and would stop many base debs from entering testing. The ia32-libs way is not practical as it causes way too much waste. Debian installer would have to grow beyond 500Mb (guess) and an OOo for ia64 beyond 300Mb for their source packages. The kernel-image* packages are the most practical ones since kernel-sources* takes care of preserving past sources. But the same can't be sanely used for ia32-libs or debian-installer. But what can be done about it? I thought about making wraper packages (for ia32-libs) that download (copy from cd) the respective i386 debs and mangle them on the fly. But that feels too hackish. Any ideas? Comments? Solutions? MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFC on mysql 4.1 in sarge
On Wednesday 18 of May 2005 17:23, sean finney wrote: > - people often symlink the mysql datadir (/var/lib/mysql) and logdir > (/var/log/mysql) to somewhere else, such as /usr/local > - because these two directories are in the files.list of woody's > mysql server, upgrading to packages in sarge leads to the symlinks > being removed and replaced with empty directories. I think the most cleanest solution would be to use dpkg diversion for the directory. It is possible but the /var/lib/dpkg/diversions file have to be modified by hand. I've beed reported with similar problem about /var/www -> /home/www symlink and the diversion was helpful. -- .''`.Piotr Roszatycki, Netia SA : :' :mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `' mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Release Notes] Use Woody's or Sarge's aptitude for upgrades?
* Bernd Eckenfels ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050517 03:35]: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: > >2. change the /etc/apt/sources.list to point to "stable" > I wish all documentation is using the distribution names not the symbolic > names. If you put "stable" in a file this will cause major trouble a few > years later. Beside it is unclear to the reader when you have written the > text and which stable you mean. (I think you mean sarge?) Fully agreed. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Entries in Packages files that lack a Source field
On 20050519T153811+1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > Adeodato Simó wrote: > > As you probably know, entries in the Packages file only have a Source > > field if the name of the source package is different from the name of > > the binary package being described. This is an inconsistency that makes > > it a bit harder to massage this data, e.g. with grep-dctrl. > > Why not add a patch to grep-dctrl instead? What patch would that be? Grep-dctrl is able to handle that, it just becomes a little messy (search in Source, and if there is no Source, search in Package). The most one could do for grep-dctrl would be to add a shorthand option for that; is it worth the trouble? Hmm, actually, it might make sense to add support for predicate abstractions. Hmm. -- Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, Debian developer http://kaijanaho.info/antti-juhani/blog/en/debian signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: /usr/lib vs /usr/libexec
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Le jeudi 12 mai 2005 à 18:32 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG a écrit : >> > You said it: there is a cache. After the first access, the directory >> > will be in the cache. Making all of this a purely imaginary problem. >> >> The whole directory is in the cache? I don't think so. Remember, >> that in between each lookup, a library gets searched, which probably >> flushes the entire cache. > > Currently, on my 256 MB machine, the kernel is using 60 MB for the > cache. I think this is enough to include a few directory blocks, > especially some as frequently used as /usr/lib. If it doesn't while loading an application then something is seriously wrong or you will be swapping. But the problem remains that you have to look at each dire entry in unhashed ext2/3, fat or minix. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFC on mysql 4.1 in sarge
Hi Sean, On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 11:23:35AM -0400, sean finney wrote: > the following upgrade paths work: > mysql-server/woody -> mysql-server/sarge > mysql-server/woody -> mysql-server/sarge -> mysql-server-4.1/sarge > but this does not: > mysql-server/woody -> mysql-server-4.1/sarge > so at this point, we're not sure what to do to cover this last problem, > as we have no guarantee the preinst of mysql-server-4.1 will even run > before mysql-server/woody is removed. the only fix we can think of is > to remove the two directories from the files.list of the woody package. > so we've come up with three options, none of which are great: > 1 the most recenty woody security update caused problems for some > people, and there's a package already waiting to go in to fix this > problem. we could put a fix into the woody mysql-server package into > this package before the security team handles it. > 2 if there's going to be a final woody point release, we could put a > fixed version in there > 3 give up on trying to fix it, assume that symlinks might get lost, and > put something in a README file telling users what they have to do > in order to fix up their database after restoring the symlinks. > i don't see 1 happening, i don't know if the prerequisite (woody release > update) for 2 is going to happen, and 3 doesn't make me all too happy > as a "solution". > so, questions, comments, suggestions all welcome, I see the same three options. Joey has said he is working on a final woody point release for the last weekend in May; you'll probably need to coordinate with him and get something uploaded soon if you want to try for this option. 3 does not sound so bad to me; it's arguably user error anyway to replace a package-provided directory with a symlink in this manner, so having a corner case of "partially upgraded woody system and installing mysql-server-4.1 and messed with a package directory" is not the end of the world... Cheers, -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Questions about waste licence and code.
"Wesley J. Landaker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Friday 13 May 2005 06:30, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote: >> On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 02:20:02PM +0200, Romain Beauxis wrote: >> > http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/waste/waste/license.cpp?rev=1.1&v >> >iew=auto >> >> Has it ever occured to you that this might be the license text itself, in >> some compressed form? > > In fact, that is what it is supposed to be, but even if not, the data is > never used during compilation or runtime. Deleting the file and removing > references to it yields bit-for-bit binaries vs. an original compile. > > Still, the question for upstream is: why is this here? It's not actually > used by the program. If it where used I would suggest replacing it with #include "/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL" (or a file inside the source) and patch to make it use plain text instead of crypted data. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: alioth mailing list moderation broken for extended period of time
Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sat, 14 May 2005 22:06:42 +0200, Martin Mewes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote : >>> So I need to ask here whether it would be a better idea to move >>> mailing lists away from obviously broken, unmaintained and >>> unsupported infrastructure like alioth currently is. >> >>If there is any $LIST-admin-position somewhat orphaned I would happily >>volunteer to take over the service if this helps. > > This problem is not one of a MIA list moderator. It is a technical > issue. > > One of the $LIST values I know as "clearly affected" is > pkg-exim4-users, and I currently serve as one of the targets for > pkg-exim4-users-admin. At least, that's what the mailman frontend of > alioth says, but [EMAIL PROTECTED] bounces > nevertheless: pipe to |/var/lib/mailman/mail/wrapper admin > pkg-exim4-users generated by > [EMAIL PROTECTED], Illegal command: admin > > I firmly believe that this is a technical problem with the mailing > list setup on alioth, and the corresponding alioth site admin tracker > item 301440. > > This problem affects all alioth mailing lists that I am admin for, > which includes the lists for pkg-exim4, pkg-torrus and adduser. > > Greetings > Marc Did the move change anything? MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Entries in Packages files that lack a Source field
Anthony Towns writes: > Adeodato Simó wrote: >> As you probably know, entries in the Packages file only have a Source >> field if the name of the source package is different from the name of >> the binary package being described. This is an inconsistency that makes >> it a bit harder to massage this data, e.g. with grep-dctrl. > > Why not add a patch to grep-dctrl instead? > > Cheers, > aj And have it insert Source: ... entries into debian/control files? grep-dctrl does not want to have special knowledge about the data content of what it greps but is ment to work on anything resembling RFC822 headers. So while it would be possible to teach grep-dctrl about Packages files and add Source: ... lines it is not desireable. There is also another reason for more Source: ... entries in the Packages file mentioned in an unrelated thread earlier and also a reason why grep-dctrl can't rebuild that entry: The detection of binary NMUs is currently, among others, using the debian version of a package and guessing from its form. What is a binary NMU and what not is not aparent from the Packages file. It has been suggested to insert Source: entries pointing to the original source of an binary NMU instead. Examples: Packages: Package: fftw-dev Architecture: m68k Source: fftw Version: 2.1.3-16.0.1 Package: libcnumx0 Architecture: m68k Source: numerix Version: 0.19-5.1.1 Sources: Package: fftw Binary: fftw2, fftw-dev, fftw-docs, sfftw-dev, sfftw2 Version: 2.1.3-16 Package: numerix Binary: libnumerix-ocaml-dev, libcnumx0-dev, numerix-doc, libnumerix-ocaml, libcnumx0 Version: 0.19-5.1.1 What should grep-dctrl do there? Guessing that -x.y.z is an binary NMU or not? Either way one of them will be wrong. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Questions about waste licence and code.
> If it where used I would suggest replacing it with > #include "/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL" (or a file inside the source) > and patch to make it use plain text instead of crypted data. Yep in fact it was used as it said, by using the -L switch for both wastesrv and the admin command wastesrv_admin. I thought about doing so, but it seemed better to simply remove the -L switch for the following means: -- The licence is already shipped within the package, and simply for _debian package users_ it is obvious to check it. -- This way it is harmless with regards to the original code source: my patch is only putting parts of the code in comment. BTW the different patches are at debian/patches so you can have a look on it and tell me what you think of it.. Then, still it is unclear if the licence is really GPL or not.. I've not heard from the original author, nor managed to find a main copyright holder or an emai.. only I got the user ml.. Romain -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Entries in Packages files that lack a Source field
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
As you probably know, entries in the Packages file only have a Source
field if the name of the source package is different from the name of
the binary package being described.
Why not add a patch to grep-dctrl instead?
What patch would that be?
Something equivalent to:
cat /var/lib/dpkg/available |
awk '/^Package:/ {P=$2;V=""}
/^Version:/ {if (V=="") { V=$2; } }
/^Source: .* (.*)/ {V=substr($3,2,length($3)-2)}
/^Source:/ {P=$2}
/^$/ { print "Source-Package:", P; print "Source-Version:", V }
{print}'
I would've thought. (That adds "Source-Package:" and "Source-Version:"
fields to every stanza)
The idea being that "grep-available --source-info [...]" would work the
same as piping the above into "| grep-ctrl [...]".
Cheers,
aj
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Entries in Packages files that lack a Source field
Goswin von Brederlow wrote: The detection of binary NMUs is currently, among others, using the debian version of a package and guessing from its form. What is a binary NMU and what not is not aparent from the Packages file. It has been suggested to insert Source: entries pointing to the original source of an binary NMU instead. Yes, by me. It's not related to this issue; the problem there is that dpkg thinks the "source" is 2.1.3-16.0.1. It will happily include a Source: line to that effect when it can't be inferred from the Version: field. Cheers, aj -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Entries in Packages files that lack a Source field
On 20050519T205101+1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Something equivalent to:
>
> cat /var/lib/dpkg/available |
> awk '/^Package:/ {P=$2;V=""}
> /^Version:/ {if (V=="") { V=$2; } }
> /^Source: .* (.*)/ {V=substr($3,2,length($3)-2)}
> /^Source:/ {P=$2}
> /^$/ { print "Source-Package:", P; print "Source-Version:", V }
> {print}'
>
> I would've thought. (That adds "Source-Package:" and "Source-Version:"
> fields to every stanza)
>
> The idea being that "grep-available --source-info [...]" would work the
> same as piping the above into "| grep-ctrl [...]".
Any user can already put that in their ~/.grep-dctrlrc (well, a not
*literally* that, but instructions to that effect).
If someone wants it as a standard feature, feel free to wishlist-bug
grep-dctrl.
--
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, Debian developer
http://kaijanaho.info/antti-juhani/blog/en/debian
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Entries in Packages files that lack a Source field
Anthony Towns writes: > Goswin von Brederlow wrote: >> The detection of binary NMUs is currently, among others, using the >> debian version of a package and guessing from its form. What is a >> binary NMU and what not is not aparent from the Packages file. It has >> been suggested to insert Source: entries pointing to the original >> source of an binary NMU instead. > > Yes, by me. It's not related to this issue; the problem there is that > dpkg thinks the "source" is 2.1.3-16.0.1. It will happily include a > Source: line to that effect when it can't be inferred from the > Version: field. > > Cheers, > aj Yes. But that misconception of dpkg makes it impossible to guess the Source: entry or alraedy gives a wrong Source entry. If it weren't for this then patching grep-dctrl or post-processing the output (like your awk script) would work. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: /usr/lib vs /usr/libexec
On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 11:47:31AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: [snip] > But the problem remains that you have to look at each dire entry in > unhashed ext2/3, fat or minix. Ehrm, I don't think having /usr/lib on a fat FS is an option anyway, considering its lacking file ownership/permission support and its filename munging... And I somehow doubt that minix is a problem either, these days. Regards: David Weinehall -- /) David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> /) Rime on my window (\ // ~ // Diamond-white roses of fire // \) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/(/ Beautiful hoar-frost (/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFC on mysql 4.1 in sarge
Hello On 2005-05-19 Steve Langasek wrote: ... > > so we've come up with three options, none of which are great: > > > 1 the most recenty woody security update caused problems for some > > people, and there's a package already waiting to go in to fix this > > problem. we could put a fix into the woody mysql-server package into > > this package before the security team handles it. > > 2 if there's going to be a final woody point release, we could put a > > fixed version in there > > 3 give up on trying to fix it, assume that symlinks might get lost, and > > put something in a README file telling users what they have to do > > in order to fix up their database after restoring the symlinks. ... > I see the same three options. Joey has said he is working on a final woody > point release for the last weekend in May; you'll probably need to > coordinate with him and get something uploaded soon if you want to try for > this option. > > 3 does not sound so bad to me; it's arguably user error anyway to replace a > package-provided directory with a symlink in this manner, so having a corner > case of "partially upgraded woody system and installing mysql-server-4.1 and > messed with a package directory" is not the end of the world... I guess you missed my response to this thread so I here the relevant parts: As a direct upgrade from mysql-server (3.23) to mysql-server-4.1 without a prior upgrade to mysql-server (4.0) is quite unlikely, I would like to see our last upload, which in addition has some notes in README.Debian and the Debconf installation notes regarding this, to be accepted for Sarge. Relevant versions are 4.1.11a-2 and 4.0.24-10. [new: 2nd issue - statically linked db3] The new bug #308966 complains that mysql-server and libnss-db produce segfault crashes as mysql-server until now still had the obsolete BDB (aka BerkeleyDB) engine enabled which uses a statically linked local db3 version. Thus BDB support could now complete been removed as luckily support for BDB was not present on most architectures, disabled by default and being warned at startup for a while now and will most likely be removed in 5.0 upstream anyway. Or we could try a patch that Piotr Roszatycki is currently evaluating which would add versioned symbols to the bdb functions in MySQL. He already suspected though, that the patch would not be a oneliner.. So do you want 1. just stay with 4.1.11a-2 and the bug 2. an upload without BDB support as 4.1.11a-3 3. wait to decide upon the forthcoming "versioned symbols patch" later bye, -christian- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Some packages up for adoption
* Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-05-04 22:29]: > Brent Fulgham has decided to give some packages away (mostly Erlang > and Dylan related packages but also some others); the following > mail is forwarded with permission from debian-private: anyone interested? > > 2. Erlang -- Concurrent programming language > > 3. erlang-doc-html -- HTML documentation for Erlang. > > 4. erlang-manpages -- Manpages for Erlang. > > 5. wings3d -- Awesome 3-D modelling software (written > > in Erlang) > > 6. libsdl-erlang -- SDL binding for Erlang. > > 7. gwydion-dylan -- Dynamic Language > > 8. gwydion-dylan-sgml -- SGML documentation package > > for Dylang. > > 9. libopengl-dylan -- OpenGL binding for Dylan. > > 10. libpng-dylan -- PNG binding for Dylan. > > > In addition, the following GNUstep packages should be > > handled by the GNUstep packaing team: > > I sent a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > about these. > > > gnustep-antlr > > gnustep-dl2 > > gnustep-gd > > gnustep-netclasses > > pdfkit.framework > > renaissance > > steptalk -- Martin Michlmayr http://www.cyrius.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Upcoming removals
* Igor Stroh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-05-06 22:10]: > >>From what I can tell, cantus3 doesn't actually provide all of the > > functionality originally present in cantus. > > And it won't either -- the upstream is unresponsive and seems to > have no interest neither in incorporating bug fixes nor in adding > features which the package formerly claimed to be offering[0]. > I'd suggest to remove cantus3 from the archive if it wouldn't > have so many users (according to popcon.d.o) - there are better Has there been any agreement about what to do with cantus and cantus3? Since you're the maintainer of cantus3 and you suggest it's removal, can you go ahead and file a bug report on ftp.d.o? Should cantus be removed too? -- Martin Michlmayr http://www.cyrius.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Upcoming removals
* Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-05-03 14:54]: > I intend to ask for removal of the following packages in the next > few days unless someone is willing to step up as maintainer. All of > these packages have been orphaned for over 60 days and have never > been part of a stable release; none of them have any reverse > (build-)dependencies. ... I will now ask for removal of these packages, with the exception of: - cantus/cantus3: situation unclear; waiting for maintainer of cantus3 to decide - bbconf: will be adopted - langband/langband-data: will be adopted - audio-cd: someone has indicated interest in this -- Martin Michlmayr http://www.cyrius.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: /usr/lib vs /usr/libexec
[David Weinehall] > Ehrm, I don't think having /usr/lib on a fat FS is an option anyway, > considering its lacking file ownership/permission support and its > filename munging... I should think the lack of symlink support is the real problem. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Some packages up for adoption
On Thursday 19 May 2005 13:24, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > > anyone interested? > > > > 2. Erlang -- Concurrent programming language > > > 3. erlang-doc-html -- HTML documentation for Erlang. > > > 4. erlang-manpages -- Manpages for Erlang. These are taken by François-Denis Gonthier. > > > 5. wings3d -- Awesome 3-D modelling software (written > > > in Erlang) > > > 6. libsdl-erlang -- SDL binding for Erlang. I will take these if no-one else is interested.
Re: Bug#309241: ITP: dguitar -- Guitar Pro 3/4 tabs viewer and player
Hello Tue, 17 May 2005 13:11:51 -0700 David Schleef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It does not appear to be available under a DFSG-compatible license. ;) > Even though the Song That Shall Not Be Named seems ancient, it's > really only about 50 years old and still under copyright. Tabs are not included in debian package. I will send mail to upstream autor to exclude tabs from official release. Regards, Verdan -- [ ,''`. [EMAIL PROTECTED] // [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] [ : :' : GG: 830398 // JID: verdan(at)chrome.pl ] [ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] //GPG: 0xDF32F531 ] [ `- 1A6F A0A1 01D1 3033 332A 60FE 4C7B 8037 DF32 F531 ] pgp802nL1S2fg.pgp Description: PGP signature
Hi cutey. Its me jjIt's J GirlIts JJbaste
Hi there sweety. This is Hottie July, from the online personlals place. I have been checking out all about you and I just wanted to say hi! I want you to look at my pics and read about me at my website. I can't wait to talk to you baby. Cya soon, J-girl www.zgeqij.ucanttouchfist.com/ju29/ __ Jimmie collinear aida oblige adolph. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#309782: ITP: keurocalc -- universal currency converter and calculator
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Moratti Claudio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name: keurocalc Version : 0.9.1 Upstream Author : Éric Bischoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Melchior Franz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Bas Willems <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://opensource.bureau-cornavin.com/keurocalc/ * License : GPL Description : universal currency converter and calculator KEurocalc is a universal currency converter and calculator. It downloads latest exchange rates directly from the European Central Bank and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. I have made packages that works, whithout any error (from lintian check) I'm looking for a sponsor to check them. Package and Sources are available here: http://spirit.knio.it/~maxer/deb/ Best regards Claudio -- System Information: Debian Release: 3.1 APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable') Architecture: i386 (i686) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash Kernel: Linux 2.6.11-maxer Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C (charmap=ANSI_X3.4-1968) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFC on mysql 4.1 in sarge
On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 02:49:13AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > 3 does not sound so bad to me; it's arguably user error anyway to replace a > package-provided directory with a symlink in this manner If you consider this an user error, then what is the officially blessed way of relocating a package-prodived directory to a different (already mounted) file system? Gabor -- - MTA SZTAKI Computer and Automation Research Institute Hungarian Academy of Sciences - -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFC on mysql 4.1 in sarge
On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 05:08:28PM +0200, GOMBAS Gabor wrote: > On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 02:49:13AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > 3 does not sound so bad to me; it's arguably user error anyway to replace a > > package-provided directory with a symlink in this manner > If you consider this an user error, then what is the officially blessed > way of relocating a package-prodived directory to a different (already > mounted) file system? currently, that would be bind mounts. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Entries in Packages files that lack a Source field
* Anthony Towns [Thu, 19 May 2005 15:38:11 +1000]: > Adeodato Simó wrote: > > As you probably know, entries in the Packages file only have a Source > > field if the name of the source package is different from the name of > > the binary package being described. This is an inconsistency that makes > > it a bit harder to massage this data, e.g. with grep-dctrl. > Why not add a patch to grep-dctrl instead? grep-dctrl was only meant an example: every script or whatever parsing Packages files will have to deal with that inconsistency (in the case of a Perl or similar script, it's less cumbersome that with grep-dctrl, that's true). Fixing apt-ftparchive solves the issue for everybody, hence what I was looking to know is if there is a reason for which the current behavior of apt-ftparchive should not be changed. Cheers, -- Adeodato Simó EM: asp16 [ykwim] alu.ua.es | PK: DA6AE621 Don't be irreplaceable, if you can't be replaced, you can't be promoted. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Changes to the weekly WNPP posting
Re: Martin Michlmayr in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I have therefore decided to stop the weekly WNPP summaries to d-d-a > and instead do the following: > > - send the weekly posting to debian-wnpp instead of d-d-a > > - only include new entries I always read the announcements to look for O or RFAs of packages I use, hence I appreciate the "only new entries" change. However, from browsing the debian-wnpp archives, there's a lot more stuff there than I'm willing to read, so not posting the announcements on a different list is a regression for me. (Ok, I could procmail it away, but that's a hack.) How about posting the announcements to -devel (instead of -d-a)? If only new entries are included, it wouldn't hurt much for those who are not interested. Christoph -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.df7cb.de/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Changes to the weekly WNPP posting
* Christoph Berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-05-19 18:40]: > How about posting the announcements to -devel (instead of -d-a)? If > only new entries are included, it wouldn't hurt much for those who > are not interested. I agree that this might be a good idea. debian-wnpp is quite cluttered with all the control messages from the BTS. What do other people think of this? Do you want a shorter WNPP posting with only new entries on -devel? -- Martin Michlmayr http://www.cyrius.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Changes to the weekly WNPP posting
On Thu, 2005-05-19 at 18:40 +0200, Christoph Berg wrote: > I always read the announcements to look for O or RFAs of packages I > use, hence I appreciate the "only new entries" change. Same here. > However, from > browsing the debian-wnpp archives, there's a lot more stuff there than > I'm willing to read, so not posting the announcements on a different > list is a regression for me. (Ok, I could procmail it away, but that's > a hack.) I'd consider it a regression as well, for the same reason. > How about posting the announcements to -devel (instead of -d-a)? If > only new entries are included, it wouldn't hurt much for those who are > not interested. I'd like to see them continue on -d-a. There are times when I just can't handle -devel and unsub completely. They really don't add up to much traffic, and the "new entries only" change should help bring back some people to doing regular reviews that they had developed a resistance to doing due to having to wade through too many old entries to see the new ones. Ben signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Entries in Packages files that lack a Source field
On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 12:18:55PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > The detection of binary NMUs is currently, among others, using the > debian version of a package and guessing from its form. What is a > binary NMU and what not is not aparent from the Packages file. It has > been suggested to insert Source: entries pointing to the original > source of an binary NMU instead. That should probably happen regardless, and is because dpkg doesn't have the proper support for it. It's independent of whether to add Source: lines when unneeded in any other case. If you bin-NMU, you *are* building from a source called -N.0.1, because you changed the changelog. dpkg-dev could have some means to build with different version number from the same source package, or any other (probably a bit hacky) way to achieve this. That there's special code in dak to cope with this issue somewhat heuristically is a sign of that the bin-NMU issue is deeper. --Jeroen -- Jeroen van Wolffelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357) http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
unsubscribe
Ignasi. __ Do you Yahoo!? Make Yahoo! your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Release Notes] Use Woody's or Sarge's aptitude for upgrades?
On Wednesday 18 May 2005 02:47, Steve Langasek wrote: > Is there a difference in packages removed if you run "aptitude install > aptitude" instead of "aptitude install aptitude dpkg"? I don't see any > reason why dpkg needs to be upgraded first, unlike aptitude. No, makes no real difference. I still need perl to keep my system at least somewhat alive. > If perl needs to be added to the list, I say to just add it. People > who have Prio: standard packages missing from their systems probably > won't want to follow our advise to use aptitude, either. perl was not missing on my system. It just needed to be upgraded along with aptitude because of dependencies (no idea which). That upgrade had to be forced by adding it in the install command. Otherwise perl would be removed, taking half my system with it. I think we will be getting two kinds of upgrade: - servers or light desktops that can get by with just upgrading aptitude - desktops with kde, gnome (from unofficial backports or not) that will have to look at the results of 'aptitude install aptitude' and decide if anything else is needed; perl probably is a prime candidate I going to try to rewrite/reorganize chapter 4 of the release notes somewhat on Saturday to see if I can make the upgrade instructions a bit more organic. pgpLCBeArcofP.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: RFC on mysql 4.1 in sarge
Hello [1st RC issue - dpkg removes symlinks when upgrading from 3.23] As discussed before in some corner cases we can do nothing except for showing the user an explanation what happened which has been done in 4.1.11a-2 and 4.0.24-10. [2nd RC issue - statically linked db3] > The new bug #308966 complains that mysql-server and libnss-db produce > segfault crashes as mysql-server-4.1 until now still had the obsolete BDB (aka > BerkeleyDB) engine enabled which uses a statically linked local db3 version. This affects only mysql-server-4.1, not the 4.0 branch. Option 3 changed: 1. just stay with 4.1.11a-2 and the bug 2. an upload without BDB support as 4.1.11a-3 3. an upload with Piotr Roszatyckis 8 line patch that mainly only adds --with-uniquename=_mysql to the configure options and runs sed over one header file (the actual diff is ~50 lines because the patch is been saved as dpatch file like all other patches, too) I verified that the patched package - runs in those cases where the old segfaultet - contains the unique-fied symbols only in /usr/sbin/mysqld and not in the libraries which would be problematic - succeeds the mysql benchmark and some basic tests I did The patch itself can be reviewed at http://www.lathspell.de/linux/debian/mysql/mysql-dfsg-4.1-4.1.11a.debian.diff So I'm in favour of 3. but could live with the other choices, too. Steve? bye, -christian- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Changes to the weekly WNPP posting
Hi, On Thursday 19 May 2005 18:43, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > What do other people think of this? Do you want a shorter WNPP > posting with only new entries on -devel? less frequent, maybe every four weeks ? i've got wnpp-alert in my cron for weekly mails - if people reaaally care, they can put into daily cron, otherwise every four weeks is IMO not really annonying - on d-d-a. maybe even every six to eight weeks... with a pointer to wnpp-alert it should be sufficient. regards, Holger pgpq2w2iZxsk1.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [WASTE-dev-public] Do not package WASTE! UNAUTHORIZED SOFTWARE [Was: Re: Questions about waste licence and code.]
On 5/18/05, Roberto C. Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Point taken. However, the GPL clearly states the conditions in > section 6: > > 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the > Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the > original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to > these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further > restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. > You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to > this License. > > To me, that says "Once the cat is out, it's out for good." So, > if you as the author of GPL software, try to restrict someone that > has already received your software under the terms of the GPL, then > you violate the license. Since you are the author, it doesn't > affect you so much, since you are also the copyright holder. And what, exactly, is the licensee's recourse if the licensor "violates the license" in this way? Are you mistaking the GPL for a statute? The law about whether a license without an explicit term can be revoked at will varies from one contract law jurisdiction to another. See Walthal v. Corey Rusk at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/7th/981659.html -- and observe that appeals courts sometimes screw up too (note the scathing commentary regarding the Ninth Circuit's opinion in Rano v. Sipa Press). Even in the Ninth, you probably wouldn't want to be using Rano as a central part of the argument in a case today. > The only other alternative is that the GPL is not enforceable. > That would probably call into question the validity of all software > licenses. However, I am not lawyer (I'm sure you guessed that by > now), so I will refrain from speaking further on this subject. IANAL either, but this sweeping statement is obviously nonsense. The typical EULA is a dog's breakfast of enforceable and unenforceable constraints, but there's getting to be quite a bit of statute and case law about how to construe a EULA under any given jurisdiction's contract law. A court of fact's analysis of the GPL terms would in any case have no value as precedent in a later court of fact where some EULA (or for that matter the GPL) is under discussion. The GPL is anomalous in that the drafter has published a widely believed, but patently false, set of claims about its legal basis in the "FSF FAQ". Yet in many ways the actual GPL text, properly construed, is sounder than the typical EULA. I don't believe that it bans all of the things that the FSF says it does (notably dynamic linking GPL and non-GPL code). But the only thing I can see that might jeopardize its validity with respect to real derivative works is the difficulty of construing a legitimate implementation of that "automatically receives" language in Section 6, which a court would have to construe in terms of conventional rules of agency to sub-license. > Incidentally, if there was so much controversy about this and the > origins and rights to the code have been in question, why has > SourceForge let the project continue for 2 years? I imagine that > it is not their responsibility that to comb through every piece > of code housed on their servers. However, I would imagine that > it would be part of their due diligence to verify whether a project > like this can even exist on their servers in the first place. SourceForge is not the tightest run ship on the planet. They are probably not protected by any kind of "common carrier" exemption, but they also probably figure they can wait until they get a "cease and desist" letter. In the real world, most violations of the law go unpunished unless they involve major bodily harm, justify a claim for large monetary damages, run afoul of the ascendant political agenda, or really piss someone off. Cheers, - Michael
Re: Changes to the weekly WNPP posting
On Thu, 2005-05-19 at 17:43 +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > * Christoph Berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-05-19 18:40]: > > How about posting the announcements to -devel (instead of -d-a)? If > > only new entries are included, it wouldn't hurt much for those who > > are not interested. > > I agree that this might be a good idea. debian-wnpp is quite > cluttered with all the control messages from the BTS. > > What do other people think of this? Do you want a shorter WNPP > posting with only new entries on -devel? I think shorter WNPP postings with only new entries posted to -devel (or even -d-a) would be much better. I fall into the "doesn't read WNPP summaries because they're too friggin' long" category, but I'd certainly glance through them, would they be shorter and posted to a list I'm subscribed to most of the time. -- Gergely Nagy -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [WASTE-dev-public] Do not package WASTE! UNAUTHORIZED SOFTWARE [Was: Re: Questions about waste licence and code.]
On 5/19/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 5/19/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The GPL is anomalous in that the drafter has published a widely > > believed, but patently false, set of claims about its legal basis in > > the "FSF FAQ". > > For the record, I disagree that this faq is "patently false". > > It is, in places, a bit simplistic, but I wouldn't advise anyone > delve into those fine points of law unless they've retained > the services of a lawyer (at which point the FAQ is merely > an interesting commentary -- it has less weight than > professional advice). The FAQ is not merely an "interesting commentary" -- it is the published stance of the FSF, to which its General Counsel refers all inquiries. Although I am not legally qualified to judge, I believe that he can have no reasonable basis under the law in his jurisdiction for many of the assertions that it contains, particularly the assertion that the GPL is a creature of copyright law and not an ordinary offer of contract. That may yet become a problem for him personally as well as for the FSF. This is not a "fine point of law", it is first-year law student stuff that anyone with a modicum of familiarity with legalese can easily verify for himself or herself by the use of two law references (Nimmer on Copyright and Corbin on Contracts) found in every law library in the US. These law references are probably also available from most law libraries in any English-speaking country and the bigger ones anywhere in the world, as are their equivalents for other national implementations. The fact that all licenses are (terms in) contracts is also blatantly obvious from a few hours' perusal of the primary literature -- statute and appellate case law -- which is available for free through www.findlaw.com. Don't believe me; look it up for yourself. > Furthermore, that FAQ is far and away better than anything > you've proposed. If that is a challenge to produce an adequate summary of my writings to date on the topic, I think I'll take it up, in my own sweet time. It won't be legal advice (IANAL), but it will be firmly grounded in the applicable law to the best of my ability, which is a hell of a lot more than you can say for the FSF FAQ. Cheers, - Michael
Re: Changes to the weekly WNPP posting
On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 05:28:50PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > WNPP (Work-Needing and Prospective Packages) is an important part of > our infrastructure used to discuss packages to be added to the archive > and, in particular, to look for new or additional maintainers for > existing packages. > > In the last few years, WNPP summaries have been posted weekly to this > mailing list to show packages which are currently orphaned or up for > adoption. I think that these weekly postings are no longer effective. > I suspect that most people delete them without reading and they only > clutter up this list - the only list which Debian developers are > required to subscribe to. Furthermore, Debian Weekly News (DWN) has > had a WNPP section for a while, further reducing the usefulness of > these weekly postings. > > I have therefore decided to stop the weekly WNPP summaries to d-d-a > and instead do the following: > > - send the weekly posting to debian-wnpp instead of d-d-a > > - only include new entries What about sending only new entries to d-d-a ? it would sure be more interesting to read if there where only new entries, or even the new entries first, and then all the other ones. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Entries in Packages files that lack a Source field
Adeodato Simó <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > * Anthony Towns [Thu, 19 May 2005 15:38:11 +1000]: >> Adeodato Simó wrote: >> > As you probably know, entries in the Packages file only have a Source >> > field if the name of the source package is different from the name of >> > the binary package being described. This is an inconsistency that makes >> > it a bit harder to massage this data, e.g. with grep-dctrl. > >> Why not add a patch to grep-dctrl instead? > > grep-dctrl was only meant an example: every script or whatever parsing > Packages files will have to deal with that inconsistency (in the case > of a Perl or similar script, it's less cumbersome that with grep-dctrl, > that's true). Fixing apt-ftparchive solves the issue for everybody, > hence what I was looking to know is if there is a reason for which the > current behavior of apt-ftparchive should not be changed. > > Cheers, apt-ftparchive can't reliably fix this as it breaks for binary NMUs. The right place is to tackle this on the dpkg level and always include the Sources entry in the control and changes files. Should be a trivial patch to dpkg-gencontrol to always add the field and a simple patch to add binary NMU support. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Changes to the weekly WNPP posting
* Ben Armstrong | > How about posting the announcements to -devel (instead of -d-a)? If | > only new entries are included, it wouldn't hurt much for those who are | > not interested. | | I'd like to see them continue on -d-a. There are times when I just | can't handle -devel and unsub completely. They really don't add up to | much traffic, and the "new entries only" change should help bring back | some people to doing regular reviews that they had developed a | resistance to doing due to having to wade through too many old entries | to see the new ones. FWIW, Âme tooÂ. I'd hate to see the listing go away completely, but trimming it to only show new entries might be a good idea. -- Tollef Fog Heen,''`. UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are : :' : `. `' `-
Thanks for your email
Thank you for your comments! Brian Hewitt The Golf Channel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [WASTE-dev-public] Do not package WASTE! UNAUTHORIZED SOFTWARE [Was: Re: Questions about waste licence and code.]
On 5/19/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The GPL is anomalous in that the drafter has published a widely > believed, but patently false, set of claims about its legal basis in > the "FSF FAQ". For the record, I disagree that this faq is "patently false". It is, in places, a bit simplistic, but I wouldn't advise anyone delve into those fine points of law unless they've retained the services of a lawyer (at which point the FAQ is merely an interesting commentary -- it has less weight than professional advice). Furthermore, that FAQ is far and away better than anything you've proposed. -- Raul
Re: alioth mailing list moderation broken for extended period of time
On Thu, 19 May 2005 11:58:47 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Did the move change anything? No: |From: Mail Delivery System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> |Subject: Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender |To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] |Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 22:09:04 + | |This message was created automatically by mail delivery software. | |A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its |recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed: | | pipe to |/var/lib/mailman/mail/wrapper admin pkg-exim4-users |generated by [EMAIL PROTECTED] |local delivery failed | |The following text was generated during the delivery attempt: | |-- pipe to |/var/lib/mailman/mail/wrapper admin pkg-exim4-users | generated by [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- | |Illegal command: admin Greetings Marc -- -- !! No courtesy copies, please !! - Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " | http://www.zugschlus.de/ Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834
Re: [WASTE-dev-public] Do not package WASTE! UNAUTHORIZED SOFTWARE [Was: Re: Questions about waste licence and code.]
On 5/19/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > For the record, I disagree that this faq is "patently false". > > > > > > It is, in places, a bit simplistic, but I wouldn't advise anyone > > > delve into those fine points of law unless they've retained > > > the services of a lawyer (at which point the FAQ is merely > > > an interesting commentary -- it has less weight than > > > professional advice). > > On 5/19/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The FAQ is not merely an "interesting commentary" -- it is the > > published stance of the FSF, to which its General Counsel refers all > > inquiries. > > And if you have retained counsel of your own, I'd let your > lawyer deal with that. If you haven't, then my "interesting > commentary" comment is irrelevant. Perhaps that is indeed what you would do. I don't consider lawyers to be the only persons capable of reading the law for themselves. They are the only ones authorized to offer certain forms of legal advice and legal representation, but that's a whole 'nother animal. > > Although I am not legally qualified to judge, I believe > > that he can have no reasonable basis under the law in his jurisdiction > > for many of the assertions that it contains, particularly the > > assertion that the GPL is a creature of copyright law and not an > > ordinary offer of contract. That may yet become a problem for him > > personally as well as for the FSF. > > I don't find in the GPL FAQ any assertion that the GPL is not > to be considered an agreement under contract law. Very, very interesting. The grossly erroneous conclusions are there (including various statements about run-time use that are false in the US in light of 17 USC 117, and false for other reasons in many other jurisdictions), but the "GPL is a creature of copyright law" bit is not. Does anyone happen to have a six-month-old copy of the FSF FAQ? Happily, the public record is not limited to websites under the FSF's control. Google Eben Moglen for the text of various interviews, and read his statements (especially paragraph 18) in http://www.gnu.org/press/mysql-affidavit.html -- or Google's cached copy, if that URL mysteriously stops working. > I can only guess that you're objecting to the implication that > copyright law is somehow important to understanding the > GPL. Presumably this bit of grandstanding is meant for the benefit of any reader who doesn't know that you and I have been spamming debian-legal (and on and off debian-devel) with this debate for months, and hence you can guess a great deal more than that. > I'm stopping here because I'm assuming that the rest of what > you wrote is somehow logically related to these assertions > which do not appear in the FAQ. Yeah, right. Like you haven't been arguing strenuously for months that the GPL is not an offer of contract. I am starting to question your sincerity again. - Michael
Re: [WASTE-dev-public] Do not package WASTE! UNAUTHORIZED SOFTWARE [Was: Re: Questions about waste licence and code.]
Michael K. Edwards wrote: > not. Does anyone happen to have a six-month-old copy of the FSF FAQ? > >From 11-2004: http://web.archive.org/web/20041130014304/http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html http://web.archive.org/web/20041105024302/http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://familiasanchez.net/~sanchezr signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Orphaning cantus3 [was: Re: Upcoming removals]
Martin Michlmayr wrote: * Igor Stroh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-05-06 22:10]: From what I can tell, cantus3 doesn't actually provide all of the functionality originally present in cantus. And it won't either -- the upstream is unresponsive and seems to have no interest neither in incorporating bug fixes nor in adding features which the package formerly claimed to be offering[0]. I'd suggest to remove cantus3 from the archive if it wouldn't have so many users (according to popcon.d.o) - there are better Has there been any agreement about what to do with cantus and cantus3? Since you're the maintainer of cantus3 and you suggest it's removal, can you go ahead and file a bug report on ftp.d.o? I don't like the idea of removing cantus3 right away, maybe there's someone who's actually using it and is willing to take over its' maintenance. Anyone up to adopt it? If nobody speaks up, I'll request a removal. > Should cantus be removed too? Yes, imho it's outdated. I'll file a bug report against ftp.d.o. Cheers, Igor -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Orphaning cantus3 [was: Re: Upcoming removals]
* Igor Stroh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-05-20 01:18]: > >Has there been any agreement about what to do with cantus and cantus3? > >Since you're the maintainer of cantus3 and you suggest it's removal, > >can you go ahead and file a bug report on ftp.d.o? > > I don't like the idea of removing cantus3 right away, maybe there's > someone who's actually using it and is willing to take over its' > maintenance. Maybe it should be removed from sarge but stay in unstable for now? > > Should cantus be removed too? > Yes, imho it's outdated. I'll file a bug report against ftp.d.o. No, reassign the existing WNPP bug to ftp.d.o. -- Martin Michlmayr http://www.cyrius.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [WASTE-dev-public] Do not package WASTE! UNAUTHORIZED SOFTWARE [Was: Re: Questions about waste licence and code.]
> > For the record, I disagree that this faq is "patently false". > > > > It is, in places, a bit simplistic, but I wouldn't advise anyone > > delve into those fine points of law unless they've retained > > the services of a lawyer (at which point the FAQ is merely > > an interesting commentary -- it has less weight than > > professional advice). On 5/19/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The FAQ is not merely an "interesting commentary" -- it is the > published stance of the FSF, to which its General Counsel refers all > inquiries. And if you have retained counsel of your own, I'd let your lawyer deal with that. If you haven't, then my "interesting commentary" comment is irrelevant. > Although I am not legally qualified to judge, I believe > that he can have no reasonable basis under the law in his jurisdiction > for many of the assertions that it contains, particularly the > assertion that the GPL is a creature of copyright law and not an > ordinary offer of contract. That may yet become a problem for him > personally as well as for the FSF. I don't find in the GPL FAQ any assertion that the GPL is not to be considered an agreement under contract law. I can only guess that you're objecting to the implication that copyright law is somehow important to understanding the GPL. I'm stopping here because I'm assuming that the rest of what you wrote is somehow logically related to these assertions which do not appear in the FAQ. -- Raul
Re: [WASTE-dev-public] Do not package WASTE! UNAUTHORIZED SOFTWARE [Was: Re: Questions about waste licence and code.]
On 5/19/05, Roberto C. Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > http://web.archive.org/web/20041130014304/http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html > http://web.archive.org/web/20041105024302/http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html Thanks, Roberto. The (moderately) explicit bit I had in mind is in fact still in the current FAQ, I just missed it: ( http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCIfInterpreterIsGPL ) ... The interpreted program, to the interpreter, is just data; a free software license like the GPL, based on copyright law, cannot limit what data you use the interpreter on. But you are quite right to provide the "philosophy" link, since that's the one that (IMHO, IANAL) goes way over the top: Most free software licenses are based on copyright, and there are limits on what kinds of requirements can be imposed through copyright. If a copyright-based license respects freedom in the ways described above, it is unlikely to have some other sort of problem that we never anticipated (though this does happen occasionally). However, some free software licenses are based on contracts, and contracts can impose a much larger range of possible restrictions. That means there are many possible ways such a license could be unacceptably restrictive and non-free. We can't possibly list all the possible contract restrictions that would be unacceptable. If a contract-based license restricts the user in an unusual way that copyright-based licenses cannot, and which isn't mentioned here as legitimate, we will have to think about it, and we will probably decide it is non-free. This text is still present in http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html . Cheers, - Michael
Re: [WASTE-dev-public] Do not package WASTE! UNAUTHORIZED SOFTWARE [Was: Re: Questions about waste licence and code.]
On 5/19/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [snip Raul's honest and polite response] > I've been objecting to the nature of the generalizations you've been > making. In other words, I see you asserting that things which are > sometimes true must always be true. > > In the case of the "contract" issue -- I've been arguing that it's > not always the case that the law will rely solely on contract law. > I've not been arguing that contract law would never apply. I believe it to be the case that contract law is the only basis on which the text of the GPL has any significance whatsoever in any jurisdiction I have heard spoken of, except that some jurisdictions may also apply doctrines of estoppel, reliance, etc. against the FSF and other GPL licensors in tort proceedings. An action for copyright infringement, or any similar proceeding under droit d'auteur for instance, will look at the GPL (like any other license agreement) only through the lens of contract law. IANAL, TINLA. I don't believe you have succeeded in providing any evidence to the contrary. > In my opinion, an assertion that contract law would never apply > would involve the same kind of over generalization as an assertion > that contract law must always apply. Contract law (or its equivalent in a civil law system) always applies to offers of contract; that's kind of tautological. And the GPL has no legal significance as anything other than an offer of contract, except perhaps as a public statement by the FSF and hence conceivably as grounds for estoppel. > I have been convinced, over the last week, that within the U.S., > contract law will almost always apply. I think there is a basis > even in U.S. law for other kinds of legal action, but I think that > you're much more likely to find examples in international law > than in U.S. law. People with actual legal qualifications in continental Europe and in Brazil, as well as other laymen who read and cite law, have weighed in on this one. While they are less prolix than I, they seem to be no less certain as to the offer-of-contract nature of the GPL. Have you any more evidence to adduce in opposition? Cheers, - Michael
Re: Changes to the weekly WNPP posting
Hi Martin, On Thursday 19 May 2005 10:28, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > WNPP (Work-Needing and Prospective Packages) is an important part of > our infrastructure used to discuss packages to be added to the archive > and, in particular, to look for new or additional maintainers for > existing packages. [ . . . ] > I have therefore decided to stop the weekly WNPP summaries to d-d-a > and instead do the following: > > - send the weekly posting to debian-wnpp instead of d-d-a > > - only include new entries > > Finally, please note that I will go through the list of orphaned > packages after sarge is out and will request removal of packages which > have not been maintained for a long time. Now is your chance to check > whether you are using any of them. Please visit > http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/ for more information. One suggestion might be to include both new entries, and entries that are about to be requested for removal. That seems like it might be useful. What do you think? -- Wesley J. Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 pgpmPCNVwGoFh.pgp Description: PGP signature
Request for key signing help
I am looking for someone to sign my gpg key. I have contacted the three people listed as offering to sign keys in Ohio [0], but I have received no response after a few days. Anibal suggested I ask on d-d. So, if anyone is able to sign my gpg key so I can get recognized by the front desk, I would appreciate it. Please reply off-list and we can make arrangements to meet. -Roberto [0] http://nm.debian.org/gpg_offer.php -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://familiasanchez.net/~sanchezr signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Entries in Packages files that lack a Source field
On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 07:34:46PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: > On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 12:18:55PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > > The detection of binary NMUs is currently, among others, using the > > debian version of a package and guessing from its form. What is a > > binary NMU and what not is not aparent from the Packages file. It has > > been suggested to insert Source: entries pointing to the original > > source of an binary NMU instead. > > That should probably happen regardless, and is because dpkg doesn't have > the proper support for it. It's independent of whether to add Source: > lines when unneeded in any other case. If you bin-NMU, you *are* > building from a source called -N.0.1, because you changed the changelog. > dpkg-dev could have some means to build with different version number > from the same source package, or any other (probably a bit hacky) way to > achieve this. I am not sure it is relevant, but dpkg-dev already support binary packages having a different version than the source packages, by adding a Version field to debian/control. There is at least one package that use this facility: olvwm: Package: olvwm Architecture: i386 Source: xview (3.2p1.4-19) Version: 4.4.3.2p1.4-19 So we could have for binNMU: Source: foo (1-1) Version: 1-1.0.1 It is possible to do that with current dpkg-dev by 1) not adding a new version field to the changelog, add any comment to the last one (the maintainer one). 2) add a Version field to debian/control with the .0.1 version. Cheers, -- Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [WASTE-dev-public] Do not package WASTE! UNAUTHORIZED SOFTWARE [Was: Re: Questions about waste licence and code.]
On 5/19/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Perhaps that is indeed what you would do. I don't consider lawyers to > be the only persons capable of reading the law for themselves. They > are the only ones authorized to offer certain forms of legal advice > and legal representation, but that's a whole 'nother animal. In a sense, it's that ability to offer legal advice which I was talking about. In any event, I'd consider going to a lawyer as better than listening to someone else reading the law for themselves. > Happily, the public record is not limited to websites under the FSF's > control. Google Eben Moglen for the text of various interviews, and > read his statements (especially paragraph 18) in > http://www.gnu.org/press/mysql-affidavit.html -- or Google's cached > copy, if that URL mysteriously stops working. Are you talking about point18? It's pretty clear that 18 refers to people who are not engaged in copying or distributing. There are no terms in the GPL which impose any contractual obligations in those cases. (Though it is the case that if someone is distributing a work illegally, that a person could receive work which supposedly has been released under the GPL but where parts of it aren't legal for further distribution.) > > I can only guess that you're objecting to the implication that > > copyright law is somehow important to understanding the > > GPL. > > Presumably this bit of grandstanding is meant for the benefit of any > reader who doesn't know that you and I have been spamming debian-legal > (and on and off debian-devel) with this debate for months, and hence > you can guess a great deal more than that. Well... if I thought I understood what your points were, I'd probably be in better shape here. For the most parts, I'm hung up on what appear to me to be gross leaps of illogic, and I'm reduced to guessing about what your points are. > > I'm stopping here because I'm assuming that the rest of what > > you wrote is somehow logically related to these assertions > > which do not appear in the FAQ. > > Yeah, right. Like you haven't been arguing strenuously for months > that the GPL is not an offer of contract. I am starting to question > your sincerity again. I've been objecting to the nature of the generalizations you've been making. In other words, I see you asserting that things which are sometimes true must always be true. In the case of the "contract" issue -- I've been arguing that it's not always the case that the law will rely solely on contract law. I've not been arguing that contract law would never apply. In my opinion, an assertion that contract law would never apply would involve the same kind of over generalization as an assertion that contract law must always apply. I have been convinced, over the last week, that within the U.S., contract law will almost always apply. I think there is a basis even in U.S. law for other kinds of legal action, but I think that you're much more likely to find examples in international law than in U.S. law. -- Raul
Re: RES: /usr/lib vs /usr/libexec
> "Thomas" == Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Thomas> sbin is for things that should be in root's path. The Thomas> executables in question are ones that shouldn't be in Thomas> anyone's path. (The standard example is programs started Thomas> only by inetd.) Why not put them under /usr/lib/$packagename/*? I have only seen one argument against this proposal, and that was of (unverified) performance issues. If a given file system does have performance problems with /usr/lib, isn't the correct solution to fix the file system? Disclaimer: I don't care too much either way. It is perhaps worth noting that a package I maintain does use /usr/lib/$packagename/* for inetd servers, and this reduces file conflicts with other packages. -- Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ITP: skim -- Smart Common Input Method platform for KDE/QT
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: William J Beksi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name: skim ~ Version : 1.2.2 ~ Upstream Author : liuspider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://www.scim-im.org/ * License : GPL ~ Description : Smart Common Input Method platform for KDE/QT skim is an input method platform based upon scim-lib under *NIX systems (including GNU/Linux and FreeBSD) optimized for KDE. It provides a GUI panel (named scim-panel-kde), a KConfig config module and setup dialogs for itself and libscim. It also has its own plugin system which supports on-demand loadable actions. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFCjVBcyy8yU+fh2zsRAmslAJsGXWuDSEGf1fFa/oS02f8Ftr3D3wCfYNRd RudL3q7nHbMn9YV0NXdcO6E= =l2Mw -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RES: /usr/lib vs /usr/libexec
Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> /bin/mount foo:whatever /bin > > I was considering commenting on this, I think if you want to start > going down this track it would be simpler to write/adapt a script that > automatically creates an initramfs. Yes, this is surely true. When I had the need for this, it was long long before the existence of such things. But that is probably without doubt the best solution now. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re:
"Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The FAQ is not merely an "interesting commentary" -- it is the > published stance of the FSF, to which its General Counsel refers all > inquiries. Although I am not legally qualified to judge, I believe > that he can have no reasonable basis under the law in his jurisdiction > for many of the assertions that it contains, particularly the > assertion that the GPL is a creature of copyright law and not an > ordinary offer of contract. That may yet become a problem for him > personally as well as for the FSF. If it is merely an offer of contract, then because no written or verbal acceptance has been given, nobody has permission to copy anything GPLd. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re:
"Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > An action for copyright > infringement, or any similar proceeding under droit d'auteur for > instance, will look at the GPL (like any other license agreement) only > through the lens of contract law. IANAL, TINLA. I don't believe you > have succeeded in providing any evidence to the contrary. Um, it is true that the rules for interpreting the meaning of licenses are more or less the same as the rules for interpreting contracts. It does not follow that licenses are therefore contracts. > Contract law (or its equivalent in a civil law system) always applies > to offers of contract; that's kind of tautological. And the GPL has > no legal significance as anything other than an offer of contract, > except perhaps as a public statement by the FSF and hence conceivably > as grounds for estoppel. Huh? What about the license as just what it purports to be: a license? There is a thing you are not considering: it is a unilateral grant of conditional permission. This is a perfectly well-traveled area of law. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#309861: ITP: xfce4-quicklauncher-plugin -- rapid launcher plugin for the Xfce4 panel
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Debian Xfce Maintainers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name: xfce4-quicklauncher-plugin Version : 0.8 Upstream Author : Masse Nicolas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://www.example.org/ * License : GPL Description : rapid launcher plugin for the Xfce4 panel Application launcher plugin for the Xfce panel. . Main differences from the original Xfce panel: . - Multiline support - Easy and fast configuration - Zoom effect . Homepage: http://xfce-goodies.berlios.de/ -- System Information: Debian Release: 3.1 APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental') Architecture: powerpc (ppc) Kernel: Linux 2.6.10-powerpc Locale: LANG=es_PE.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=es_PE.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#309860: ITP: xfce4-genmon-plugin -- Generic Monitor for the Xfce4 panel
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Debian Xfce Maintainers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name: xfce4-genmon-plugin Version : 1.1 Upstream Author : Roger Seguin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://xfce-goodies.berlios.de * License : LGPL Description : Generic Monitor for the Xfce4 panel This plugin cyclically spawn the indicated script/program, displaying its output as a string into the panel. It could be useful for periodic monitoring of program's status. . Homepage: http://xfce-goodies.berlios.de/ -- System Information: Debian Release: 3.1 APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental') Architecture: powerpc (ppc) Kernel: Linux 2.6.10-powerpc Locale: LANG=es_PE.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=es_PE.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Entries in Packages files that lack a Source field
Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 07:34:46PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: >> On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 12:18:55PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: >> > The detection of binary NMUs is currently, among others, using the >> > debian version of a package and guessing from its form. What is a >> > binary NMU and what not is not aparent from the Packages file. It has >> > been suggested to insert Source: entries pointing to the original >> > source of an binary NMU instead. >> >> That should probably happen regardless, and is because dpkg doesn't have >> the proper support for it. It's independent of whether to add Source: >> lines when unneeded in any other case. If you bin-NMU, you *are* >> building from a source called -N.0.1, because you changed the changelog. >> dpkg-dev could have some means to build with different version number >> from the same source package, or any other (probably a bit hacky) way to >> achieve this. > > I am not sure it is relevant, but dpkg-dev already support binary > packages having a different version than the source packages, by > adding a Version field to debian/control. > > There is at least one package that use this facility: olvwm: > > Package: olvwm > Architecture: i386 > Source: xview (3.2p1.4-19) > Version: 4.4.3.2p1.4-19 > > So we could have for binNMU: > Source: foo (1-1) > Version: 1-1.0.1 > > It is possible to do that with current dpkg-dev by > > 1) not adding a new version field to the changelog, add any comment to > the last one (the maintainer one). > 2) add a Version field to debian/control with the .0.1 version. > > Cheers, > -- > Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> That is sort of the idea but in a cleaner way. The idea was, iirc, to add an option to dpkg-buildpackage for binary-NMU that getts passed down to dpkg-gencontrol and adds Source: foo (1-1) for Version: 1-1.0.1, automatically cuting away the bin-NMU revision. The DAK can then accept them the normal way (as the right source version already exists in archive) and reject any bin-NMUs without this (as their source will be seen as missing). apt-ftparchive, dpkg-scanpackage, whatever tool will automatically do the right thing too. A further idea was to have e.g. "dpkg-buildpackage --binary-nmu 'reason for doing this'" that will automatically add the changelog entry for the binary-nmu with the given reason and build with the right flags. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#309862: ITP: xfce4-cpugraph-plugin -- cpu load grap plugin for the Xfce4 panel
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Debian Xfce Maintainers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name: xfce4-cpugraph-plugin Version : 0.2.2 Upstream Author : Alexander Nordfelth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://xfce-goodies.berlios.de/ * License : BSD Description : cpu load grap plugin for the Xfce4 panel The cpugraph plugin displays a graph from your latest systemload. . Homepage: http://xfce-goodies.berlios.de/ -- System Information: Debian Release: 3.1 APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental') Architecture: powerpc (ppc) Kernel: Linux 2.6.10-powerpc Locale: LANG=es_PE.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=es_PE.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#309863: ITP: xfce4-fsguard-plugin -- filesystem monitor plugin for the Xfce4 panel
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Debian Xfce Maintainers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name: xfce4-fsguard-plugin Version : 0.2.0 Upstream Author : Andre Lerche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://xfce-goodies.berlios.de/ * License : BSD Description : filesystem monitor plugin for the Xfce4 panel The fsguard plugin checks free space on a chosen mountpoint frequently and displays an alarm if free space is less than given alarm limit. . Homepage: http://xfce-goodies.berlios.de/ -- System Information: Debian Release: 3.1 APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental') Architecture: powerpc (ppc) Kernel: Linux 2.6.10-powerpc Locale: LANG=es_PE.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=es_PE.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please try out dpatch 2.0.12 from experimental
Hi, on the weekend, dpatch 2.0.12 has been uploaded to experimental. It introduces some great new features and some fixes that are inappropriate for unstable at this stage of the release[1]. Please try out the package from experimental to find bugs before it is uploaded to unstable. Greetings Marc [1] if the release team says "ok", I can upload to unstable on the weekend or in the middle of next week, but I won't do before sarge release so without the explicit Ok. -- -- !! No courtesy copies, please !! - Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " | http://www.zugschlus.de/ Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834
Re:
On 5/19/05, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > An action for copyright > > infringement, or any similar proceeding under droit d'auteur for > > instance, will look at the GPL (like any other license agreement) only > > through the lens of contract law. IANAL, TINLA. I don't believe you > > have succeeded in providing any evidence to the contrary. > > Um, it is true that the rules for interpreting the meaning of licenses > are more or less the same as the rules for interpreting contracts. It > does not follow that licenses are therefore contracts. The words "license" and "contract" are indeed not synonymous under law. But the law applicable to offers of contract containing grants of license is contract law (or the equivalent codes in civil law systems). > > Contract law (or its equivalent in a civil law system) always applies > > to offers of contract; that's kind of tautological. And the GPL has > > no legal significance as anything other than an offer of contract, > > except perhaps as a public statement by the FSF and hence conceivably > > as grounds for estoppel. > > Huh? What about the license as just what it purports to be: a > license? You're a little bit late to the party. Check the debian-legal archives for debate and case law out the yin-yang. There's no such thing as a "copyright-based license". > There is a thing you are not considering: it is a unilateral grant of > conditional permission. This is a perfectly well-traveled area of > law. Also part of contract law; and not applicable to the GPL, which does not lack for acceptance or consideration. Thread at http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/12/msg00209.html . Cheers, - Michael (IANAL, TINLA, etc.)
Re: Changes to the weekly WNPP posting
* Wesley J. Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-05-19 18:08]: > One suggestion might be to include both new entries, and entries > that are about to be requested for removal. That seems like it might > be useful. What do you think? There isn't really a way to find out entries which are going to be removed soon. However, when I make a large removal run (versus just removing one or two packages), I typically post to d-d-a or -devel to give people a chance to adopt the packages. -- Martin Michlmayr http://www.cyrius.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re:
"Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Um, it is true that the rules for interpreting the meaning of licenses >> are more or less the same as the rules for interpreting contracts. It >> does not follow that licenses are therefore contracts. > > The words "license" and "contract" are indeed not synonymous under > law. But the law applicable to offers of contract containing grants > of license is contract law (or the equivalent codes in civil law > systems). You're speaking too vaguely. The law applicable to offers of contract is of course contract law. It does not follow that the GPL is thus an offer of contract. Indeed, it explicitly disclaims any such intention itself. It would be a curious offer of contract indeed that labelled itself not an offer of contract. >> Huh? What about the license as just what it purports to be: a >> license? > > You're a little bit late to the party. Check the debian-legal > archives for debate and case law out the yin-yang. There's no such > thing as a "copyright-based license". I didn't call it a "copyright-based license." I said it's a license. >> There is a thing you are not considering: it is a unilateral grant of >> conditional permission. This is a perfectly well-traveled area of >> law. > > Also part of contract law; and not applicable to the GPL, which does > not lack for acceptance or consideration. Thread at > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/12/msg00209.html . I don't care what is "part of contract law." I care if the GPL has the legal status of a contract. You keep discussing *other* questions instead of that one. The GPL is a unilateral grant of permission, a concept which is independent of contract (whether you lump it together with contracts, in one thing called "contract law" is irrelevant to me). A unilateral grant of permission lacks the features of contract, but is still a perfectly real thing. Estoppel (which you have noted) indeed attaches upon such grants of permission: having granted me permission to enter your land, you cannot then sue me for (say) trespass. If your grant of permission to enter your land was simply a unilateral grant, it is not a contract, it is a grant of permission. It is also binding on you: having granted me permission, you cannot then sue me for trespass when I take you up on it. Now a grant of permission can be revoked, which is a different question. If the FSF turned nasty, could they revoke the permission? The question here is likely one of reliance. If I have relied on a future-tense permission (perhaps if you told me "you may enter my land forever") then to the extent of my reliance, you can't sue me for trespass. The bindingness of such things is tricky, and nobody knows how far it goes if the FSF actually attempted to revoke the permissions given. Indeed, for this reason the FSF acquires copyright through a contract with authors such that the authors retain permanently the right to distribute their work under any terms they like, and in which the FSF is contractually bound to distribute only under free software licenses. In this way, the FSF can assure authors and the world that its hands are tied and one need not worry about such a revocation of permission. (This is relevant, because a legal judgment against the FSF could result in its assets being transferred to some nasty person.) But the point is really almost irrelevant. If the GPL is actually a contract and not a grant of permission, then what follows? If you have agreed to the contract, it's binding, and that's that. If you have not, then there is no arrangement under which you are permitted to distribute the software, and so you can be sued for copyright violation by the FSF. Since this is exactly the state of affairs which the grant-of-permission argument claims would obtain, what is the practical difference? Indeed, reduction to practice is the point. If the GPL successfully achieves its ends, then it works. And it does, in fact, achieve them. On numerous occasions the GPL has shown that it is a powerful instrument for insuring compliance with its provisions as they were intended, even upon reluctant or recalcitrant redistributors. And finally, for Debian's purposes, it's even more irrelevant. Our standing policy is that if there is doubt about the force or intention of a license, we err on the side of simply doing what the licensor demands. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re:
On 5/19/05, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip arguments that might have been worthy of rebuttal on
debian-legal five months ago]
I'm not trying to be snotty about this, but if you want to engage in
the debate about the proper legal framework in which to understand the
GPL, I think you would do best to at least dip into recent
debian-legal archives and also look at some of the precedents cited
back in December and January. At this point, there seem to be quite a
few people who agree that the FSF's stance ("copyright-based license")
and the far-from-novel one that you advance ("unilateral license /
donee beneficiaries") are untenable in the jurisdictions with whose
law they are to some degree familiar.
> And finally, for Debian's purposes, it's even more irrelevant. Our
> standing policy is that if there is doubt about the force or intention
> of a license, we err on the side of simply doing what the licensor
> demands.
Which is great, until you find yourself estopped from arguing
otherwise in a courtroom. It matters both what you do and why you say
you do it.
Cheers,
- Michael
Re:
"Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At this point, there seem to be quite a
> few people who agree that the FSF's stance ("copyright-based license")
> and the far-from-novel one that you advance ("unilateral license /
> donee beneficiaries") are untenable in the jurisdictions with whose
> law they are to some degree familiar.
You are choosing to post on three different forums. Having made that
choice, it is your obligation to make your comments relevant to them
all; you cannot post on debian-devel, and then insist that your
interlocutors there read a different list.
Please don't put words into my mouth. The quotes you give are not my
words; I have not spoken of a "unilateral license / donee
beneficiaries", though you words suggest I have.
You have not explained here (on debian-devel, that is) at all why we
should disgregard the actual success of the license in convincing
reluctant people to comply with its provisions. Indeed, to date there
is nobody who is willing to risk a lawsuit due to noncompliance with
the GPL when the FSF's compliance folks have come after them. This in
itself suggests very strongly that those who have money to lose on the
question think the GPL is binding
And you haven't answered my question. Please explain how the
difference in legal theory here affects the bindingness of the GPL on
those who choose to distribute GPLd software.
>> And finally, for Debian's purposes, it's even more irrelevant. Our
>> standing policy is that if there is doubt about the force or intention
>> of a license, we err on the side of simply doing what the licensor
>> demands.
>
> Which is great, until you find yourself estopped from arguing
> otherwise in a courtroom. It matters both what you do and why you say
> you do it.
Please be specific. Where are we hurting ourselves? (Or, if we are
not, then why is this relevant?)
Thomas
P
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi there honey. It's Julie from the personals placefrom the personals placefrom the dating serviceextend
Hi cuteypie. It's me J J, from the personals service. I have been reading all about you and I just had to say hi. I have a website I want you to see where you can see all about me and see what I look like too. I can't wait to hear from you cutey. Cya later baby, Julie http://yjcmo.lastmansitting.com/ju29/ __ GJG4CHskGdZNS3JumQjq
Re: Changes to the weekly WNPP posting
* Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-05-19 17:43]: > I agree that this might be a good idea. debian-wnpp is quite > cluttered with all the control messages from the BTS. > > What do other people think of this? Do you want a shorter WNPP > posting with only new entries on -devel? FWIW, this is what the new posting looks like: http://lists.debian.org/debian-wnpp/2005/05/msg00480.html -- Martin Michlmayr http://www.cyrius.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
