Is a different opinion about a license a case for the ctte?
Hi folks,
before I follow the advise how to refer a question to the CTTE[1] I'm
wondering whether licensing questions are also a topic here. I admit
I'm a bit unsure whether this minor issue about a license is really
worth that even more people spent time into it. I'm demotivated myself
by no progress in something I would consider nitpicking about a non-issue.
But I would like to use this as a general example to know whether CTTE
could be of help in licensing questions.
FTPMaster was asking to mention the MIT license of the test-dummy
package[2] since "upstream decided that this test package should have a
different license than the rest of his software and said so in the
corresponding setup.py"[3]. The statement of FTPMaster is based on line
9 of a 12 line of code example file[4]. It contains the string
"license='MIT'" while all other code of the package is GPL-3.
I expressed that an example string "license='MIT'" is not a license
statement but ftpmaster gave a second reject. I feel in the situation
to do something that is wrong but accepted by ftpmaster or simply do
not provide our users with this package (since I have better things to
do than play pingpong).
At the DebConf CTTE BoF I was just wondering, whether such kind of
licensing questions are a topic for CTTE since I do not see any other
instance that could stop this pingpong game. So for the moment I would
just like an answer like: Yes, Andreas, we like to draw a decision
about this, please file an according bug report.
Thanks a lot for working as CTTE members
Andreas.
[1] https://www.debian.org/devel/tech-ctte.en.html
[2] https://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/r-pkg-team/2022-February/024165.html
[3] https://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/r-pkg-team/2022-February/024248.html
[4] https://salsa.debian.org/r-pkg-team/r-bioc-basilisk/-/blob/master/inst/example/inst/test_dummy/setup.py#L9
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: