Packages in Main/Universe I'm not allowed to modify ...
ubuntu at kitterman.com
Tue Sep 16 13:04:03 UTC 2008
On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 13:44:09 +0100 "(``- -´´) -- Fernando" <ubuntu at bugabundo.net> wrote:
>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.
I think we need a policy change to document this requirement. I think as part of that we also need some agreement on a 'generic' team for such packages and hopefully some volunteers to familiarize themselves with the specific licensing terms and upstream policies.
More information about the Ubuntu-devel-discuss