Am Montag, dem 21.02.2022 um 10:57 -0300 schrieb Eriberto Mota: > [..] > Considering that docbook is orphan plus your reply (or your very > aggressive reply), Maybe you should re-consider your approach and reflect on the actions you were announcing. I cannot even believe that a DD threatens to relicense without proper permissions by the authors. And you haven't layed out what you consider to be the problem, which makes it impossible to even come up with a sensible solution. Also: How should the Docbook license, which clearly restricts itself to the "[..] DocBook XML DTD and its accompanying documentation [..]", cover the packaging files? JFTR: Most of the original Debian package maintainers cannot be reached anymore. Your chances to get the required permissions are slim. > I am closing this bug. There is IMHO no "hampering" condition. The patches that are part of the package will not be accepted into upstream for the reasons I have layed out earlier. The DocBook project is not changing their releases, not even for bug fixes. Those have always gone into the next release or the RC for the next release. Thus the existing patches pose no problem at all IMO. New patches also pose no problem. The patch author has the authority to provide their contribution to the DocBook project under the DocBook license and also ship it with the docbook-Debian package if necessary. And then again: We always had the intention to not deviate from upstream - the Debian packages should always behave like the upstream releases. Thus we were always working closely with upstream (Debian even had a chair in the OASIS, IIRC). And I fail to see good reasons. why we would want to change that, as well. Daniel -- Regards, Daniel Leidert <dleidert@debian.org> | https://www.wgdd.de/ GPG-Key RSA4096 / BEED4DED5544A4C03E283DC74BCD0567C296D05D GPG-Key ED25519 / BD3C132D8B3805D1808123AB7ACE00941E338C78 https://www.fiverr.com/dleidert https://www.patreon.com/join/dleidert
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part