Bug#566264: RM: libclass-dbi-loader-relationship-perl/oldstable -- RoQA; License problems
Hi Philipp,
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 09:56:02PM +0100, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 04:27:47PM +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
> > Its kind of unfortune that this removal will remove other packages
> > as well (and affect packages which do have users)
> > but I think we simply *can not* keep the packages in any suite.
>
> The module in question is a Perl 47 liners that only does some syntactic
> "sugar" (I'd question even that) for DBI relationships.
so what exactly is your point here? Might a 47 liner not need a license?
> We are distributing this thing since 2004. Now you rush to remove it from
> everywhere without caring about its reverse dependencies which would even
> be easily fixable. If someone had dropped a bomb upon us with this it
> would've exploded some time ago already.
Which is, honestly speaking, a bad thing that should not have happened
in the first place. Fact is: The licensing of the code is totally
unclear. We do not even have the right to distribute it, because we
never received a license at all. I cannot really understand how you
can argue for contempt of legality just because we already did it
a long time (and in fact tricked our users by writing something
about GPL|Artistic in the copyright file).
> I won't rush to remove this from stable and oldstable just yet. The timing
> is a too unfortunate for this. Let's replace the few relationships with
> sane lines and not drop packages out of stable in a hurry (i.e. 3h between
> bug filing and removal from unstable are weird).
Well, if the library is replaceable its a good idea to fix the
reverse depends. However I'm not sure if this can keep us from removing
it. But you wear the hat to decide that. I just spotted a - imho - major
problem and reported it.
> If the ftpmasters choose to overrule me, so be it, but I encourage them
> to look at the simplicity of the package and what it does first. Yes,
> there might be some regexps, but still.
>
> > I've checked popcon for maypole and the package itself and they
> > are below 100..
>
> Not everyone believes^Wsubmits to popcon.
Thats known to all involved parties. But this argument does not help
much if the argument is "we are doing something we must not do"
and apart from that our only indication.
Regards,
Patrick
Reply to: