| 1 |
On 2012.11.25 13:44, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 2 |
> >>>>> On Sun, 25 Nov 2012, hasufell wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> > License issues seem trivial enough (at least regarding the |
| 5 |
> > functionality of an ebuild) to be fixed without permission of the |
| 6 |
> > actual maintainer. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Certainly there are trivial license issues, but not all of them are. |
| 9 |
> See bugs 436452 and 441734 for trivial examples, and bugs 440938 and |
| 10 |
> 444412 for non-trivial ones. I think that it's better if bugs are |
| 11 |
> filed for the second category, so that the change will be traceable. |
| 12 |
> Also the maintainer should at least be informed in case the LICENSE |
| 13 |
> change would remove the package from the @FREE license group. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> > Even if the fix is wrong the ebuild remains intact. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> > If someone feels uncomfortable about this proposal we could limit |
| 18 |
> > this permission to the license herd. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> > Less bugs, quicker fixes. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> For the remaining trivial cases I'm fine with it either way. And |
| 23 |
> there's no reason to limit the permission to the licenses team. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> Ulrich |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
From the point of view of the licencor, the licence is just as |
| 30 |
important as the code, so there are no trivial licence issues. |
| 31 |
As a trustee, I am unhappy with losing the traceability at all. |
| 32 |
Other trustees may have different opinions. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
What seems trivial today, may not be trivial tomorrow if a licencor |
| 35 |
gets upset. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
Regards, |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
Roy Bamford |
| 41 |
(Neddyseagoon) a member of |
| 42 |
elections |
| 43 |
gentoo-ops |
| 44 |
forum-mods |
| 45 |
trustees |
Archives