On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 12:07 AM, Jonas Smedegaard <email@example.com>
On 11-06-06 at 11:55pm, Ingy dot Net wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 11:15 PM, Jonas Smedegaard <firstname.lastname@example.org
> > True, both Acme and Module::Install has same licensing but not trueNo, the issue I raise is not that Acme depends on Module::Install for
> > that you are the sole author of the Acme project as shipped in the
> > tarballs!
> > So "we" being Debian cannot fully automate redistribution of your
> > project the way you currently document our permission to do so,
> > because you do not explicitly and machine-readable state who gave
> > Debian the permission to redistribute inc/* under the same license
> > as Perl.
> My head is a bit swimming here, but if you are saying that using
> Module::Install as a packaging tool impedes on the licensing of the
> module it packages then this is a bug that needs to be dealt with
> outright. It is certainly not the intent of Module::Install to impose
installation routines, but that it _includes_ pieces of Module::Install
in the distributed sources.
You declare your distributed tarballs as "copyright Ingy" when in fact
some parts of the tarball are "Copyright authors of Module::Install".
I suspect you did not write the code below the inc/ subdir, right?
Funny you should ask. Much of it, yes. I am the original creator of Module::Install. But that doesn't matter in principle. It might only matter in that I can help change the policy such that using Module::Install does not impose any copyright complications on its users. How do I make that so for Debian?
> In any case, can we not automate anything that a human would create byYes, it is possible to automate things. Is you aim to satisfy the needs
> hand, as long as the person with the right to automate understands
> what they are doing, and asserts that it is correct?
of CPAN or the needs of Debian?
Both, of course. My aims are in the interest of OSS.
My primary aim here is to make it natural for CPAN authors to see their work all the way through to Debian or any other distribution system. I think it is stuffed that things are so complicated that a code author can't easily get his code into Debian and any other distribution. Then again, I live in the future.
Debian needs to track _authors_, not only licenses.
Does Debian need to track issues that are not any concern of the original authors? In other words, if a CPAN author can say that certain concerns are not important to them, why does Debian need to make them important?
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136
[x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private