Packages in Main/Universe I'm not allowed to modify ...

Tue Sep 16 12:44:09 UTC 2008

Olá Scott e a todos.

On Tuesday 16 September 2008 11:46:58 Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Tuesday 16 September 2008 06:40, Alexander Sack wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 06:15:53AM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 16 September 2008 02:59, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> > > > Scott Ritchie <scott at open-vote.org> writes:
> > > > > I think the exceptions are few enough that we could probably code
> > > > > some package-specific rejection notification and then keep a list on
> > > > > the wiki somewhere.  Nothing too fancy would be needed.
> > > >
> > > > FWIW, I think especially when there are a few packages affected by
> > > > this, it is quite likely to forget to look at the wiki page at each
> > > > 'apt-get source' command. It should therefore be made clear at download
> > > > time what restrictions are on a package.
> > > >
> > > > Isn't that what we have archive section for? apt-source pretty clearly
> > > > tells me if I'm downloading something from multiverse or restricted.
> > >
> > > The problem is these packages are in Main/Universe because they can be
> > > modified, but only if they are rebranded, so while they meet Ubuntu
> > > licensing policy for Main/Universe, as a practical matter changes are
> > > legally problematic.
> > >
> > > To take the Mozilla example, it's my understanding that we need
> > > permission from Mozilla corp before we patch.  I'm certainly not situated
> > > to get that permission, so I really can't modify it.
> > >
> > > I would imagine there are other packages in the archive that our ability
> > > to make changes to without rebranding is limited.  I'd like some kind of
> > > reference list available to developers so they can know.
> > >
> > > I have my own opinions about the entire Firefox question, but that's for
> > > a different thread.  Like it or not, such licenses are allowed in
> > > Main/Universe and so I'm trying to improve how we deal with this reality.
> >
> > We use "Mozillateam" in the Maintainer field (compared to Core Dev or
> > MOTU) - which could be intepreted as "please ping mozillateam before
> > uploading".
> >
> > So maybe we could make a general rule like: If the maintainer field isnt
> > core dev or MOTU, please try to get in touch with the maintainer first?
> 
> Which it would certainly be polite to do in any case.  That sounds like it may 
> be a better way to handle it than a list on the wiki.  We'd need some more 
> generic 'maintainer' to use for non-mozillateam packages with such 
> restrictions, but I imagine that's solvable.

So the only change we need, is a change in practise not in Policy, that every package that is not on those too teams should be ack before upload!
And maybe we need a few more package-oriented teams instead of the generic ones for those packages.

-- 
BUGabundo  :o)
(``-_-´´)	http://LinuxNoDEI.BUGabundo.net
Linux user #443786    GPG key 1024D/A1784EBB
My new micro-blog @ http://BUGabundo.net
ps. My emails tend to sound authority and aggressive. I'm sorry in advance. I'll try to be more assertive as time goes by...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-discuss/attachments/20080916/9925e801/attachment.sig>