[01:44] good night [01:44] gn8 RainCT === sistpoty needs to restart X === RainCT [n=RainCT@unaffiliated/rainct] has left #ubuntu-motu ["Leaving."] === _czessi [n=Czessi@dslb-088-073-042-041.pools.arcor-ip.net] has joined #ubuntu-motu [01:52] any information why there was no tribe 6 today ? [01:54] leonel: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-announce/2007-September/000337.html === sistpoty [n=sistpoty@DSL01.212.114.235.112.ip-pool.NEFkom.net] has joined #ubuntu-motu [02:00] #ubuntu-devel [02:00] oops, sorry === superm1 [i=c6167a76@gateway/web/cgi-irc/ircatwork.com/x-1d87fa9806316c81] has joined #ubuntu-motu === valles_ [n=valles@200.71.131.58] has joined #ubuntu-motu === khermans [i=khermans@nat/cisco/x-427ac41f169f67e1] has joined #ubuntu-motu === paran [n=paran@cust.fiber-lan.snet.lk.212.214.112.112.visit.se] has joined #ubuntu-motu [02:08] any main sponsors around? [02:09] anyone going to attend a meeting? [02:09] oh, sheesh [02:09] shit [02:09] sistpoty: you didn't miss anything [02:10] :) === DarkMageZ [n=richard@ppp121-44-11-183.lns4.syd7.internode.on.net] has joined #ubuntu-motu === jwendell [n=wendell@ubuntu/member/wendell] has joined #ubuntu-motu === DktrKranz [n=Luca@ubuntu/member/dktrkranz] has joined #ubuntu-motu === xopher [n=xopher@unaffiliated/xopher] has joined #ubuntu-motu === bszmyd [n=bszmyd@c-24-8-191-72.hsd1.co.comcast.net] has joined #ubuntu-motu [02:24] so I guess vmware server has really been pulled from universe? [02:24] (virtualbox doesn't have kernel modules ...) [02:25] bluefoxicy: it's in commercial [02:25] i want to install player but i can't because the kernel modules are built against a well old version of linux [02:26] alex-weej: commercial? [02:26] there's a new repo? [02:26] bluefoxicy: as of more than a year ago [02:26] http://www.ubuntugeek.com/how-to-install-vmware-server-from-canonical-commercial-repository-in-ubuntu-feisty.html [02:27] it's not in the synaptic checkbox interface thing ;P [02:27] didn't it got renamed to partner recently? [02:27] Should a new upstream version of a package become available in Debian before being submitted to Ubuntu, or can Ubuntu packages be uplevel of Debian? [02:27] geser: well not that i know of [02:28] bszmyd: absolutely the latter [02:28] I've seen upload mentioning it [02:28] alex-weej: do they need to be versioned ubuntu in that case? [02:28] bszmyd: i'm not sure [02:29] alex-weej: see for example https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/gutsy-changes/2007-September/007466.html [02:30] you think the distro should be feisty-partner? [02:30] I can't find a gutsy-commercial or gutsy-partner [02:30] http://archive.canonical.com/dists/ [02:30] bluefoxicy: that's probably because gutsy isn't supported yet :P [02:34] keescook: around? [02:35] keescook: we've got some question regarding the interaction of SRUs and -security uploads during the motu meeting right now, so if you're around, maybe you could join into #ubuntu-meeting? === xopher [n=xopher@unaffiliated/xopher] has joined #ubuntu-motu [03:07] anyone have experience using quilt within packages? === rexbron [n=rexbron@CPE001310b2d1d1-CM0012256e816a.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com] has joined #ubuntu-motu === bigon [n=bigon@121.245-136-217.adsl-dyn.isp.belgacom.be] has joined #ubuntu-motu === zakame [i=zakame@ubuntu/member/zakame] has joined #ubuntu-motu === bigon [n=bigon@121.245-136-217.adsl-dyn.isp.belgacom.be] has joined #ubuntu-motu === Pici [n=Pici@ool-4355be00.dyn.optonline.net] has joined #ubuntu-motu [03:31] ScottK: Yay! [03:32] StevenK: you missed the MOTU meeting [03:32] When was it? [03:32] as did i , oops [03:32] 0 UTC [03:33] it's not yet finished (but almost) [03:33] Ah, it started 1.5 hours ago [03:33] I was sleeping, and now I'm late for lunch. === StevenK runs off. [03:34] <_MMA_> imbrandon: Did you get that archive up for joejaxx? [03:35] no, i dident, i'll have them back over herer tomarrow where i can upload it if its still needed [03:35] damn, all the core-devs run away, before I could even say what main package I need sponsored *g* [03:35] sistpoty: what package you need? i'm core [03:35] imbrandon: just a tiny debdiff... [03:36] imbrandon: but a huge package: l-r-m [03:36] ahhh heh [03:36] bug #98641 [03:36] Launchpad bug 98641 in linux-restricted-modules-2.6.22 "[nvidia-glx-new] Driver is missing libwfb breaking X on 8000 series cards" [High,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/98641 [03:36] (debdiff attached= [03:36] ahh nice, that bug affects me too soooo i should care ;) [03:36] ok give me an hour and i'll poke at it [03:36] cool, thanks! [03:36] heh [03:37] (not too sure, if I'll be still awake then though, however I'm accellerated on amd64 right now with my debdiff *g*) [03:37] we're not ina an archive freeze atm are we? [03:37] imbrandon: afaik no. [03:37] just NEW ? kk [03:38] Actually, unless things have changed in the last 12 hours, no. [03:38] kk [03:38] just makin sure i havent been watching real close === TheMuso goes back to working on brltty... [03:38] figured i would get back in full swing for HH [03:38] well, I asked earlier on on #ubuntu-kernel, but unfortunately didn't get any answer to the question if anyone minds me fixing the package *g* [03:39] sistpoty: I'm surprised they don't have a git tree for it. [03:39] c [03:39] afaik thtey do i think [03:39] dont they ? [03:39] Everything else kernel is git [03:39] night all === xopher [n=xopher@unaffiliated/xopher] has joined #ubuntu-motu [03:39] night geser [03:39] Night geser. [03:39] Goodnight geser [03:39] gnight geser [03:39] there was no notice from apt-get source... so if they have, they keep it under the pillow [03:40] gutsy: git://kernel.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ubuntu-gutsy.git [03:41] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/KernelGitGuide :) [03:41] sistpoty: ^^ [03:41] is l-r-m in there as well? [03:41] StevenK: I thought you'd like the removal bugs. [03:41] i was gonna say i just started reading that so i could start some ATI driver hacking soon [03:42] heh, KVM28 is the Ubuntu Gutsy version of KVM? [03:43] imbrandon: thats kernel only [03:43] Mm, I love mapserver upstream. They seem to have put a whole lot of code convention changes in their latest security release. [03:43] And what a strange convention it is: [03:43] - yy_c_buf_p = yytext_ptr + yy_amount_of_matched_text; [03:43] + (yy_c_buf_p) = (yytext_ptr) + yy_amount_of_matched_text; [03:44] ahh ok [03:44] seems silly not to have lrm there too [03:44] imbrandon: Well lum is in git, but another tree. [03:44] wtf someone hit imbrandon.com and tell me the string of txt ? === gizmo [n=gizmo@89.28.145.43] has joined #ubuntu-motu [03:45] fskin dmz's [03:46] yep, I wondered about this a few weeks ago, but nobody new precisely (and I didn't get any answer when asking on -kernel, though I admittedly asked about 8000er series, which might have a bad conversation starter *g*) [03:46] william@irranat:~/MOTUing$ telnet imbrandon.com 80 [03:46] Trying 192.168.1.69... [03:46] That looks a little off. === chillywi1ly [n=danielb@rrcs-67-53-13-65.west.biz.rr.com] has joined #ubuntu-motu [03:47] thats the nat'd server its not in dns that way [03:47] strange [03:47] imbrandon.com. 1729 IN CNAME imbrandon.zapto.org. [03:47] imbrandon.zapto.org. 60 IN A 192.168.1.69 [03:47] wtf over [03:48] damn debian no ip client [03:48] reporting the nat ip [03:48] grrr [03:48] lol, I guess I need to put more braces around my not yet working code (at university) *g* [03:48] imbrandon: Is it doing dynamic updates and providing the wrong IP? [03:48] thanks Fujitsu [03:48] np [03:48] yes [03:48] Haha. [03:48] its reporitng the lan ip not the wan one [03:49] fskin [03:49] !logs [03:49] Channel logs can be found at http://people.ubuntu.com/~fabbione/irclogs [03:52] Bah, I give up on mapserver. I thought a UVFe would be easy for a security update, but: [03:52] 166 files changed, 3424 insertions(+), 84916 deletions(-) [03:52] ouch === bszmyd_ [n=bszmyd@208.230.118.107] has joined #ubuntu-motu [03:55] Why must they put parentheses around *everything* in a x.x.1 increment? [03:55] ok Fujitsu mint telneting one more time [03:55] imbrandon.zapto.org. 60 IN A 69.247.213.131 [03:55] Better. [03:55] thanks [03:56] hopefully on next update it wont revert [03:56] `imbrandon.com' is the response. [03:56] Hopefully. === astro76 [n=james@unaffiliated/astro76] has joined #ubuntu-motu [03:56] yea i have my domain redirecting to my house for the time being [03:56] untill i secure some better hosting [03:57] imbrandon: You still working for that hosting company? [03:57] no [03:57] thus me bringing the servers to my house [03:57] Ahhh. [03:57] oh [03:57] how does one request a sponsor manually since the requestsponsor script does not seem to be working? [03:57] FYI, on SRU version numbers I've done numbering like security does (.1) and if there was a conflict between security and updates used 0.1 so that both can still be incremented. [03:58] bszmyd_: subscribe ubuntu-universe-sponsors [03:58] imbrandon: U gioe tiy parted on good terms. === anibal [n=anibal@debian/developer/anibal] has joined #ubuntu-motu [03:58] O_o [03:58] I hope you parted on good terms even [03:58] TheMuso: yea [03:58] Fujitsu: Are you saying ask my question there, or post my request there? [03:58] bszmyd_: File a bug and subscribe that tmea. [03:58] *team [03:58] i actualy ended up witha better paying job in a better envirnment [03:59] Who for now? [03:59] imbrandon: Ah ok. Good to hear. [03:59] federal reserve [03:59] ScottK: sounds reasonable. so a sru with .2 should pick up security from .1.X [03:59] AIX administration [03:59] Yes [03:59] Everyone be careful, there's a Fed on the channel... [03:59] ;-) [04:00] bah ;) [04:00] heh [04:00] i dont actualy work for them i work for a company that has a contract with them ;) [04:01] sistpoty: The example in question was lighttpd for Dapper: https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/lighttpd/ [04:01] I worked it out with keescook to make sure he was cool with it before I did it. === guest22 [n=brendt@c-76-26-103-132.hsd1.nm.comcast.net] has joined #ubuntu-motu [04:03] cool, so I guess this might be a good reference [04:05] sistpoty: It's probably about as complex as you can get as I had to do a security update both to the released version in security and to a pending SRU in -proposed. [04:06] yay! [04:06] Doing a security update in proposed confused the archive and it got rejected the first time. [04:06] It all worked out in the end. [04:06] hehe === Pici [n=Pici@ool-4355be00.dyn.optonline.net] has joined #ubuntu-motu === LaserJock [n=mantha@ubuntu/member/laserjock] has joined #ubuntu-motu [04:09] hey LaserJock [04:10] Heya LaserJock. [04:10] hi guys [04:11] LaserJock: I figured out what was bugging me so much about the PPA terms of service. [04:11] sistpoty: nice email [04:11] thx LaserJock [04:11] ScottK: yeah? [04:11] You are correct that they are very typical for terms that business use with their customers (youtube is very similar) [04:12] sistpoty: we'll see what comes of it ;-) [04:12] And that's what I guess was getting me. === bddebian [n=bdefrees@c-71-224-172-103.hsd1.pa.comcast.net] has joined #ubuntu-motu [04:12] LaserJock: definitely, I'm already preparing for impact *g* [04:12] hmm, they are a business and we are their customers [04:12] Are we part of a community here or are we customers from which Canonical is seeking to extract maximum economic benifit.? [04:13] That's a rationale perspective, but not what I would have hoped for. [04:13] yeah [04:13] As an example, the Canonical trademark policy on Ubuntu is very community oriented and generous compared to what it might be. [04:13] well, I think LP is a tad different [04:13] Heya gang [04:13] launchpad and ubuntu are very diffrent products though [04:13] if it was only an Ubuntu thing it might be different [04:14] hm... I guess this can't be compared, but publishing a paper via acm ... just like selling your soul *g* [04:14] hi bddebian [04:14] Agreed and we've argued about it before. [04:14] Heya sistpoty [04:14] but yeah, it'd be nice if it was more of a community approach [04:14] So that's why it bugged me so much. [04:15] I think it would be quite reasonable to say that if you put something in a PPA that's not distributable and we get sued, you pay for the lawyers. [04:15] I found the "You must only upload opens source software to our closed source app" part more interesting ;-) [04:15] Yeah. [04:15] LaserJock: Heh, yes. [04:15] I'd like to see it be as long as you follow the terms of service, we'll work together to deal with any bad fallout. [04:16] hm... if I had known, I'd have written an even sharper reply tonight *g* [04:16] As it stands, I'd be very relucant to upload stuff that I didn't write all by myself. People can sue for anything. [04:17] A related question I'm curious about is who is legally responsible for team PPAs? [04:18] I have access to one because of a team I'm on and I never agreed to any terms. [04:18] Presumably the uploader. === robitaille [n=daniel@ubuntu/member/robitaille] has joined #ubuntu-motu [04:18] Hm, you can upload to a PPA without agreeing to the ToS at all. [04:18] yeah, they are going to be tracking uploader, for other reasons [04:18] a team PPA yeah [04:18] Presumably, but if I'm the uploader and I never agreed to the terms, they don't have legal force. [04:18] LaserJock: They don't at the moment, I believe. [04:19] ScottK: not too sure, in case they're acting as "service provider" (as in isp) [04:19] Fujitsu: I'm not in the LP beta and I now have this link to "activate my ppa" that requires me to accept terms of service. [04:19] sistpoty: It's a point of uncertainty. [04:20] ScottK: Hm, I wonder why... [04:20] The key bit is I have to pay the lawyers and any judgements if they get sued. [04:20] Which is why I declined to accept the terms. [04:20] for your packages, yeah [04:21] were can I find the ToS? [04:21] at your PPA [04:21] Right, but even if the packages are legal to distribute and I didn't actually do anything that violates the terms of service? [04:21] you can get sued in real life the same way [04:22] Sure, but the internet is a big place and the exposure is bigger. [04:22] yeah, but it's similar rationale [04:22] and why should Canonical be responsible for your packages [04:23] Why should I be responsible for Canonical's legal bills if I used their service only in a legal way? [04:23] If it was used in a legal way, why are there legal bills? [04:23] I think that if someone actually distributes illegally via PPA, it is totally reasonable for them to pay. [04:23] Fujitsu: Even if you win the lawsuit, there are still legal bills. [04:24] In the US loser only pays legal costs in VERY extreme cases. [04:24] Anyone can sue whether it's reasonable or not. === effie_jayx [n=valles@ubuntu/member/effie-jayx] has joined #ubuntu-motu === DarkSun88 [n=Ma@ubuntu/member/darksun88] has joined #ubuntu-motu === DarkSun88 [n=Ma@ubuntu/member/darksun88] has left #ubuntu-motu ["Sto] [04:25] So it really comes down, IMO, to are PPAs a community resource or a commercial product. It's clearly the latter in Canonical's mind and I don't particularly appreciate it. [04:25] LP is a commercial product [04:25] They're welcome to that perspective (they're paying for it after all), but I wish it were different. [04:25] Sure. [04:26] Which is why the less we entangle our processes into it the better. [04:26] that's certainly one way to look at it [04:26] I don't think it's 'evil' or anything, just clearly outside the community. [04:26] luckily I'm in Germany, and we can host revu (with a good connection now) for free :) [04:26] You mean the page might not take a couple of minutes to load!? [04:27] I don't think it's outside the community because it's a commercial product [04:27] Damn did I miss something? :-) [04:27] bddebian: Bug 137447 [04:27] Launchpad bug 137447 in soyuz "PPA Terms of Service one sided" [Medium,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/137447 [04:27] Ah [04:27] Fujitsu: it's still a very old sparc box, but we'll be migrating to s.th. faster next tuesday (hopefully, unless I'm burdened with work) *g* [04:28] I don't think open-source/closed-source or free/commercial have much of anything to do community or not [04:28] *do with [04:28] sistpoty: are you really wanting a response to your email? or where you sort of kidding? :-) [04:28] LaserJock: I agree, but the terms of use for PPA are not community terms. They are commercial terms. They're choice, but that's what they are. [04:28] They're/Their [04:29] I don't really know how you can say they aren't community terms [04:29] LaserJock: both :P [04:30] There's no balance to them. They are written for maximum advantage to Canoncial (as a commercial entity should do), not in a way that's balanced and benifits the community. [04:30] how is it not a benifit to the community? we get to use PPAs [04:30] If you agree to the one sided terms. [04:30] it's usual "you play nice, we play nice" [04:31] Except that's not what it says. [04:31] sure seems like that to me [04:31] It says even if you play nice if something bad happens you get all the bills and we pay nothing. [04:31] restricting a community to (not very well thought of ToS -- I consider the Ubuntu CoC to be one of the good ones) will potentially cost you members. Especially if the ToS is written in a language, which isn't parseable by JohnDoe, but instead inflicts a feeling of fear [04:32] ScottK: but you are focusing on a silly little thing and making a big deal out of it [04:32] damn, set the braces to whatever you may seem fit, but not like in the sentence I wrote ;) [04:32] I'm sure it could be nicer to the community "Canonical foots the bill for everything" [04:32] LaserJock: It's a silly little thing to you. Please don't project your perspective on me. === jml [n=jml@ppp121-44-214-123.lns1.hba1.internode.on.net] has joined #ubuntu-motu [04:32] ScottK: I'm not [04:33] OK. I accept that. It sounded that way to me. [04:33] I'm saying your picking on one thing, and provided no evidence that it's even a problem or unusual [04:33] and saying the whole TOS is bad [04:34] I think that Ubuntu is unusual and the fact that the ToS are not similarly unusual is unfortunate. [04:34] It definately might be something to have people look into [04:34] LP ( PPA's ) is NOT ubuntu [04:34] Agreed and that's the problem. [04:34] learn and live that [04:35] imbrandon: Some are trying to turn it into a big part of the MOTU hopeful processes. [04:35] imbrandon: but the limits are blurring [04:35] I don't see why allowing Canonical to cover their butt from all the weirdos out there is not being a part of the community [04:35] i dont see that as a problem, if you dont like it you can goto the CC and persuade them to use a better product, LP and Ubuntu are 100% seperate [04:35] imbrandon: You weren't here for the 4 hour IRC "discussion" LaserJock and I had over the sense of using proprietary systems to make FOSS. I know. [04:35] Canonical bears a much greater work [04:35] s/work/risk/ [04:35] ScottK: yes i was [04:35] Oh. OK. [04:35] and i dont see the problem [04:35] the odds of any one of us getting sued is quite small [04:36] ScottK: Which one? I might have missed it., [04:36] Fujitsu: You were there. [04:36] OK, there have been a few, so I wasn't sure if I'd missed one. [04:36] heh [04:36] LaserJock: I'd just prefer if the terms were in the spirit of as long as you don't do anything wrong we're all in this together. [04:36] Do we know when PPA is being released? [04:36] i dont care if someone uses VisualStudio to compile a ubuntu package or kernel, nor use LP for Bugtracking or PPA's but i do see that VS and LP are not ubuntu [04:37] Fujitsu: One of those was enough. [04:37] dosent mean i will [04:37] Fujitsu: they are already for Beta Testors [04:37] Mm, VS-compiled kernel. I like it. [04:37] LaserJock: beta != release === tlayton [n=tlayton@000-123-096.area2.spcsdns.net] has joined #ubuntu-motu [04:37] should be public in a couple weeks I think [04:37] imbrandon: right. which is why we should keep it out of our core processes as much as possible. [04:37] :( [04:37] it's a public beta [04:37] and anybody is welcome to join Beta Testors [04:37] ScottK: why ? that means your projecting your ideals on me then, i think ppa are a good tool that should be included [04:37] see my point ? [04:38] it's about as released as you get, without releasing [04:38] imbrandon: I don't mind you using PPA. I just don't want to be forced to do it. === Fujitsu remembers the days when launchpad-beta-testers had < 20 members. [04:39] no one is forced to use it even if it becomes more of a part of the MOTU processes, just as they dont HAVE to use LP for bug tracking or bzr LP hosted source [04:39] etc [04:39] imbrandon: that will limit possible contributors if they agree to the ToS. If they can't parse these, it creates fear [04:39] They do have to use LP for bug tracking, don't they? [04:39] Pretty much. [04:39] Last time I checked, there wasn't a third-party Ubuntu package bugtracker. [04:39] yes, but there is no contract involved. [04:39] nah there is a bug tracker for nearly every package in ubuntu in debian and upstream [04:40] point is if you are gonna put that on the line you must stop using the clied sourtce bug tracker also or your blowing hot air imho [04:40] closed* [04:41] pesonal it dosent bother me to use or let others use it, but if you feel that stroingly about it look at it as a whole, not pick a small scapegoat [04:41] personaly* [04:41] well, I have to look at it pragmatically [04:41] because I'm not gonna change Mark's mind [04:41] imbrandon: no, there is a subtle difference, as the bug tracker doesn't mean you have to sign s.th. to be able to report bug. You don't have to sign a contract with google as well when searching [04:42] and I can't write a subsitute for LP [04:42] sistpoty: no, but we require CoC, and most indepth services have a TOS [04:42] sistpoty: your wrong you still agree to their AUP with every use or be banned === Frogzoo [n=Frogzoo@202.155.165.25] has joined #ubuntu-motu [04:43] LaserJock: A CoC signature isn't a requirement. [04:43] it is for membership, MOTU, etc. [04:43] LaserJock: right, that's what I stated, everyone know what the CoC states, but you'd have to be a lawyer to find out what the ToS exactly means. [04:43] imbrandon: AUP? [04:43] sistpoty: shesh, who cares [04:43] acceptable use policy === Fujitsu is yet to see an AUP for LP. [04:44] There's a little bit of copyright stuff, I guess. [04:44] Fujitsu: i was saying for google or myspace or anyother "service" [04:44] I've agreed to so many TOS, usually more legalese and restrictive than the PPA one [04:44] I'd say PPA TOS is the least of our problems [04:45] PPA has much bigger problems, such as its existence. === Fujitsu watches the crackful repos appear. [04:45] point is its not required to contribute nor even if it becomes more used will it be REQUIRED [04:45] Like they don't exist already? :_) [04:45] bddebian: Well, they're a lot easier to produce now. [04:46] True [04:46] as a side-note: not agreeing to a ToS received me from a security-update which would have brought me WPA checking. however this can't really be compared though *g* === ScottK has already seen a bug in LP about a PPA generated package. FYI. [04:46] ScottK: Yay! [04:46] sure [04:46] I hope they fix the maintainer mangling soon, too. [04:47] I made a bet with kiko about how long it would take for somebody to upload w32codecs [04:47] Bwaha. [04:47] libdvdcss2 === ScottK waits for the avalance of "But I got it from Launchpad, what do you mean it's not officially supported." [04:47] I said 1 week [04:47] ScottK: Yeeeep. [04:47] we had a ton of bugs for beryl, and it wasn't even uploaded [04:47] Gotta run. See you all later. [04:47] it's not unique to PPA [04:47] oh, btw.: interesting thing about PPA's is that what you can upload differs entirely from what you can upload to ubuntu pockets === Fujitsu rejoiced while rejecting them all in one email. [04:48] sistpoty: How? [04:50] Fujitsu: as discussed on the LP ml. not too sure if I can reproduce now correctly, but iirc ppa state that you need to adhere to license X, Y, Z, whereas the ubuntu policy states that it needs to be free (not as plain as this, exaggerating as an example=) [04:50] Ubuntu policy doesn't actually exist, AFAIK. [04:50] it does === cypherbios [n=cyr@ubuntu/member/cypherbios] has joined #ubuntu-motu === DarkMageZ [n=richard@ppp121-44-11-183.lns4.syd7.internode.on.net] has joined #ubuntu-motu [04:50] Where? === sistpoty digs up the links [04:52] sistpoty: they said that anything Free for Ubuntu is Free for PPA [04:53] LaserJock: right, but the ToS says differently [04:53] that just needs to get worked out [04:54] yeah, as I stated already, it imho needs to be made similar to the CoC, so that everyone can understand it easily === ceros_ [n=user@c-76-111-84-156.hsd1.va.comcast.net] has joined #ubuntu-motu [04:55] yeah, but that is a bit difficult for actual legal issues [04:56] if we want easy to understand [04:56] then we should never use GPL [04:56] point for you ;') [04:56] of course it shouldn't be unneccesarily difficult [04:57] but, well, legelese is life, unfortunately [04:57] I can't really blame Canonical for that [04:59] imo explaining the license in clear words might help a lot (though I'm not entirely aware of the legal implications of doing so) [04:59] well, you can do like CC [04:59] and have a "plain english" header [05:00] Scottk's point definately is worth looking at [05:00] but making a big stink out of it is just silly [05:00] what are the odds of any of us getting sued? [05:01] man all this jumble trying to go forward with something , 20 years of discussion and no resolution is looking more and more like debian not ubuntu === imbrandon grubles and goes to something productive [05:02] We inherited their packages and processes, so surely we must have inherited that as well :P [05:02] Fujitsu: not for the first 2.5 years but as times goes on people seem to bring the same mentaility [05:02] thats a bad thing(tm) [05:02] imho [05:03] and no we inherited very few processes [05:03] if any that are still in use [05:04] I quite like our lack of processes. [05:04] The NEW queue is getting tantalizingly shorter.... :P [05:04] StevenK: exactly, if i wanted all that i would be a DD not a ubuntu dev [05:04] Fujitsu: damn, can't find ubuntu licensing neither on the wiki nor on the ubuntu.com site now. It must hide somewhere, I'm sure, telling about what software can enter which archive === Whoopie_ [n=Whoopie@unaffiliated/whoopie] has joined #ubuntu-motu [05:05] sistpoty: I asked elmo about it a while ago [05:05] sistpoty: It's not strictly defined, though... Doesn't give a proper policy on GFDL, etc. [05:05] sistpoty: regarding CC licenses, and I believe it's gone [05:05] Otherwise it's mostly DFSG-freeness. [05:05] Fujitsu: I think there used to be an acutal policy page [05:05] sistpoty: http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/components [05:06] Fujitsu: yes, but in words that I can understand (I'm not too sure if I could understand DFSG though *g*) [05:06] There's probably a secret document on the Canonical wiki. [05:06] thx imbrandon [05:06] we dont 100% adhear to dfsg either [05:06] imbrandon: `mostly' [05:07] :) [05:07] elmo said it's basically DFSG+doc/artwork licenses [05:07] so CC-By-SA and GFDL are ok for doc/artwork [05:07] LaserJock: that's about what I thought, but it's not documented. [05:07] oh, since when can restricted stuff reside in main? that's news to me *g* [05:08] in the end, it's all up to the the archive admins [05:08] same with Debian [05:08] sistpoty: Where's this? [05:08] Fujitsu: but main may also may contain binary firmware and selected fonts that cannot be modified [05:09] this makes restricted seem unnecessary [05:09]