[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#316487: debian-installer-manual: Missing copyright credit: Karsten M. Self for section C.4

On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 09:02:46PM -0400, Stephen Gran wrote:
> Do you really not understand actual license issues?  There is, as I
> understand it, a currently released work, which knowingly incorporates a
> substantial amount of Karsten's work, and violates his license in doing
> so.  This is not some hypothetical case that is being beaten to death on
> -legal about whether some stipulation or other is free enough, this is a
> real case of Debian violating a license.  The past violation is not
> fixed.  That is the only important thing here.  If maintainers want to do
> a blackbox rewrite so as to avoid the onerous condition of adding the
> line 'some parts written by Karsten Self', then that is up to them to
> deal with for future releases.  That is not the issue here, and if you
> think it is, you've missed the boat.

I don't think anything of the sort, and if you think I do, you're not
paying attention in the slightest.

> Debian has not offered to correct it.  What has been offered is excision
> from future releases.  This does nothing for present and past releases.

I see Karsten claiming that nothing is being done, and yet:

"on Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 11:56:32AM -0400, Joey Hess (joeyh@debian.org) wrote:"

which is ... today.  Joey was actively communicating, working to resolve
the issue.  Karsten didn't happen to like how he intended to resolve
it, so he waylaid that discussion.  It's probably entirely true that this
issue sat unresolved far longer than it should have, but it's ridiculous
to claim that Debian, *currently*, is being unresponsive on the same
day that you're discussing the issue.

All in all, if I was working with someone trying to resolve a licensing
issue, he decided that he didn't like the perfectly legitimate option
I'd selected, started screaming at the DPL and d-legal to override me,
claiming unresponsiveness--despite discussing the issue that very day--and
claiming that it's "unacceptable" to remove a work at my discretion, I'd
probably have a similar reaction that Joey did--throwing my arms in the
air and letting someone else deal with that person.

In any event, this is going nowhere.  The options are clear (as previously
enumerated); adding an attribution in the past stable releases and removing
the material in unstable and future releases seems perfectly reasonable
(or, for faster response, adding attributions to both, and then removing the
material as it's rewritten), as far as I can see.  Unless someone has
something new to add, I'm dropping this.

Glenn Maynard

Reply to: