Is a different opinion about a license a case for the ctte?
before I follow the advise how to refer a question to the CTTE 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 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". The statement of FTPMaster is based on line
9 of a 12 line of code example file. 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