Quoting Anton Zinoviev (anton@lml.bas.bg): > None from me. But no matter how we feel about it, #532842 means that > 1.44 is breaking the law and this is realy not good. "the" law? Come on.... That immediately leads to "what law?" We have a deal, here. Either we let a long overdue version enter testing and we deal with the issue later or we just block the whole system for several weeks because of a ridiculously missing Copyright statement. If fixing this was so important, than it should have been fixed on July 9th when the bug was reopened and upgraded to RC. As i wasn't, I concllue that fixing that bug is not that urgent and the version in unstable can enter testing. I don't think that this problem is RC, indeed, and I propose downgrading that bug to important. > One solution I am thinking is to put some information in > debian/copyright. Also one needs to check whether the following line > > # This file is distributed under the same license as debian-installer > > is compatible with what it was before (what does "license of d-i" mean?): I think that all d-i components are licensed under GPLv2. Anyway, having a license for a translation is always a debated topic and using that formula is a good way to push the "problem" away. > > # This file is distributed under the same license as the console-setup package. As long as translation of c-s is derived from the master file, this is simply not possible to do easily and, anyway, for what purpose? > > Also the lines > > # Copyright (C) 2003 Software in the Public Interest, Inc. > > are completely wrong - not only for the translations coming from > console-setup, but also for the translations from d-i, unless the > translators have sent to SPI a copyright transfer document. Sure, this is done this ridiculous way for about 5 years. And probably dozens, if not hundrreds, of Debconf translations have this. Do we really want to raise an RC bug against each concerned package? Indeed, it's quite some time since I try to change this in the area I can do something: French debconf translations now carry the French l10n mailing list as copyright holder, which is as close to reality as it can be. This is done systematically when translations are updated, with the consent of the person formerly mentioned in the copyright statement. For other languages, that's the various translators' problem to assign the copyright properly. If they don't, we shouldn't do it on their behalf.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature