On 2012.11.25 14:42, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Roy Bamford
>
> wrote:
> > 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 a
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> The key words are "serious" or "contact from the copyright holder."
Sorry - revise that a little:
1. Serious and they don't get a timely response from the maintainer
(or licenses@g.o).
or
2. Contact from the copyright holder.
The intent i
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 10:04 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>
> But there _are_ trivial cases (e.g., most of the init script issues,
> bug 425702) where a simple ChangeLog entry would be enough for
> traceability.
I think something like that is best announced first, and then done if
there is no issue
> On Sun, 25 Nov 2012, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Roy Bamford wrote:
>> 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 al
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Roy Bamford wrote:
> 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.
Not
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, bu
> 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 tri
The discussion came up in the thread
[gentoo-dev] open season on other-dev's packages -- policy change?
License issues seem trivial enough (at least regarding the functionality
of an ebuild) to be fixed without permission of the actual maintainer.
Even if the fix is wrong the ebuild remains intac
