Packages in Main/Universe I'm not allowed to modify ...
ubuntu at kitterman.com
Tue Sep 16 11:46:58 BST 2008
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
> 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.
More information about the ubuntu-devel