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

Bug#818622: marked as done (RFS: r-cran-r6/2.1.2-1 [ITP])

Your message dated Sun, 20 Mar 2016 11:35:35 +0000
with message-id <20160320113535.GG32164@chase.mapreri.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#818622: RFS: r-cran-r6/2.1.2-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #818622,
regarding RFS: r-cran-r6/2.1.2-1 [ITP]
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
818622: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=818622
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: wishlist

  Dear mentors,

  I am looking for a sponsor for my package "r-cran-r6"

 * Package name    : r-cran-r6
   Version         : 2.1.2-1
   Upstream Author : Winston Chang <winston@stdout.org>
 * URL             : https://github.com/wch/R6
 * License         : MIT
   Section         : gnu-r

  It builds those binary packages:

    r-cran-r6  - R classes with reference semantics

  To access further information about this package, please visit the
following URL:

  http://mentors.debian.net/package/r-cran-r6


  Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command:

    dget -x
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/r/r-cran-r6/r-cran-r6_2.1.2-1.dsc


  Regards,
   Gordon Ball

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 11:23:34AM +0100, Gordon Ball wrote:
> Yes, it seemed best to be consistent with the rest of the r- ecosystem.

yes indeed.

> > though, you wrote that this packages uses the MIT license (though
> > you maybe want "Expat" instead), except for citing the MIT license
> > in the DESCRPTION file, I can't find any copy of the license
> > itself.  This is actually a violation of the MIT. Please clarify 1)
> > how you could know upstream intended *that* MIT license (there are
> > several, you reported the most common one called Expat) 2) really
> > upstream needs to ship one copy of it.
> > 
> 
> The R extension manual [1], section 1.1.2, gives a list of accepted
> short license names (including "MIT") and indicates they refer to the
> copies on the R licensing page [2]. This gives MIT/Expat in template
> form [3]. The text in d/copyright should be a copy of [3] starting
> from "Permission". Admittedly that file does indicate that a copy
> should have been included as the LICENSE file, but I think that
> following the R manual to deduce this is the correct form of the
> license is valid.
> 
> Is the contents of LICENSE a blocker until and unless upstream changes
> this, or can the intent be taken as sufficiently clear?
> 
> 
> [1]: https://cran.r-project.org/doc/manuals/r-release/R-exts.html
> [2]: https://www.r-project.org/Licenses/
> [3]: https://www.r-project.org/Licenses/MIT

that looks just wrong to me :(

I've never thought
    The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be
    included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
could be interpreted in some other ways.  Or is that "shall" is not
strong enough?

If I did my query within codesearch.debian.net right there are 11 source
packages in the very same situation.

Given this, I think I'm going to ignore the problem for the next hours,
and then I'll send an email to debian-legal, as it looks just wrong to
me.  Besides, *I think* we are actually complying to the MIT terms since
/usr/share/doc/<pkg>/copyright.gz will contain the text for the binary
distribution and debian/copyright for the source distribution, so this
is not a huge deal for debian anyway, *I think*.  IANAL


So, I uploaded this.

Please, stage a Standards-Version bump for the next upload, sort the
build-deps and fix extra-license-file (that was the only thing I'd have
to say, so I didn't hold the upload).

For the other 2 packages: I had some other remarks other than such
simple ones, please address them.

-- 
regards,
                        Mattia Rizzolo

GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18  4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540      .''`.
more about me:  http://mapreri.org                              : :'  :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri                  `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia  `-

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


--- End Message ---
Reply to: