| 1 |
>>>>> On Sun, 25 Nov 2012, hasufell wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> License issues seem trivial enough (at least regarding the |
| 4 |
> functionality of an ebuild) to be fixed without permission of the |
| 5 |
> actual maintainer. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Certainly there are trivial license issues, but not all of them are. |
| 8 |
See bugs 436452 and 441734 for trivial examples, and bugs 440938 and |
| 9 |
444412 for non-trivial ones. I think that it's better if bugs are |
| 10 |
filed for the second category, so that the change will be traceable. |
| 11 |
Also the maintainer should at least be informed in case the LICENSE |
| 12 |
change would remove the package from the @FREE license group. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> Even if the fix is wrong the ebuild remains intact. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> If someone feels uncomfortable about this proposal we could limit |
| 17 |
> this permission to the license herd. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> Less bugs, quicker fixes. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
For the remaining trivial cases I'm fine with it either way. And |
| 22 |
there's no reason to limit the permission to the licenses team. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Ulrich |
Archives