[00:36] <lifeless> ScottK: hi
[01:22] <ScottK> Hello lifeless.
[01:27] <lifeless> ScottK: I wanted to see if +queue works better for you now
[01:27] <lifeless> ScottK: just for NEW/UNAPPROVED handling
[01:28] <ScottK> lifeless: I don't have any packages to accept, but we're going into beta freeze on Friday, so should be pleanty then.
[01:28] <lifeless> ScottK: is there any way we can check before frday?
[01:28] <ScottK> I'll find something.
[01:28] <lifeless> ScottK: (if its a problem on friday, we probably can't do anything till late monday to fix it)
[01:29] <ScottK> OK.  There's no doubt some binary New that needs doing.
[01:29] <ScottK> I'll have a look in a bit.
[01:29] <lifeless> thanks!
[01:38] <micahg> ScottK: you could always upload some random package with a new source name a couple dozen times to test :)
[01:38] <ScottK> I could.
[02:08] <micahg> lifeless: I just got a page not found on clicking logout
[02:09] <lifeless> bug  663975 ?
[02:09] <lifeless> or bug 579547 ?
[02:09] <lifeless> or bug 684210 ?
[02:09] <lifeless> or bug 628410 ?
[02:10] <micahg> lifeless: it's 684210
[08:59] <lifeless> ScottK: did you get a chance to test +queue?
[09:08] <mrevell> Hello 'padders
[09:50] <czajkowski> mrevell: *hugs*
[09:50] <mrevell> Hello there czajkowski
[09:56] <czajkowski> mrevell: how's you?
[09:56] <mrevell> I'm well thanks czajkowski. How are you?
[09:56] <czajkowski> not too bad, sitting in the office, looking at my very long to do list and out at the sunshine
[09:57] <mrevell> Heh, well, at least we have the sunshine.
[09:59] <czajkowski> indeed
[09:59] <czajkowski> such a pretty view of the canal and the boats going by down here
[10:19] <ScottK> lifeless: No.  I knew I was forgetting something last night.  I'll try it today.
[10:24] <wgrant> It's still by no means fast, but it should be somewhat better.
[10:52] <arand_> mrevell: Hello, in regards to the PPA ToU, Martin Owens making a conflicting statement on the mailing list, so I just wanted to make sure, freeware (provided all packaging componets also are freeware) can go in a PPA?
[10:53] <geser> wgrant: Hi, are you a little bit familiar with package sets?
[10:53] <mrevell> arand_, Hi there. I haven't seen Martin's email yet. I spoke to a few people in the Canonical Launchpad team yesterday and we agreed that the terms of use allow you to do what you want ... so long as it's freely distributable.
[10:53] <wgrant> geser: I am.
[10:54] <geser> wgrant: is it a bug that DMB owned package sets in maverick got TB owned in natty? I guess it happend when natty got initialized
[10:54] <lifeless> geser: wgrant wants to talk to you about the ftbfs report too :)
[10:54] <lifeless> ScottK: thanks
[10:54] <lifeless> wgrant: +queue /processing/ was still slow? did you get a ++oops++ ?
[10:54] <wgrant> geser: Hm, interesting. When was the ownership transferred from TB to DMB?
[10:55] <wgrant> lifeless: There are bits of it which should still be terribly slow.
[10:55] <geser> wgrant: those package sets where created DMB owned by the TB (or more precisely cjwatson at that time)
[10:55] <wgrant> geser: Hm, OK. Let me check the copying code.
[10:55] <mrevell> arand_: I've just read Martin's email and I can totally understand why he says what he does but our PPA terms of use are different to those of our project hosting terms of use (https://help.launchpad.net/Legal/ProjectLicensing)
[10:55] <lifeless> wgrant: right, care to get a ++oops++ trace, for proactive fixing?
[10:56] <geser> wgrant: see also my question to the TB about it for a list of package sets (https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2011-March/000744.html)
[10:56] <arand_> mrevell: Ok, excellent. I'll continue poking upstream in hopes that one day in the future... Anyhow, for now, great, I will re-open the PPA with these terms applying to the packages, thanks for looking into it.
[10:57] <mrevell> arand_, No problem. Thanks for being flexible to meet the terms of use.
[10:58] <wgrant> geser: Distroseries initialisation creates the new packagesets with the same owner as the distroseries. This sounds like a bug.
[10:59] <wgrant> geser: I'm not sure if packagesets are transferrable without SQL.
[16:05] <exarkun> What's the URL to launchpad staging?
[16:05] <tsimpson> staging.launchpad.net
[16:06] <exarkun> has it really been down for two days?
[16:07] <tsimpson> well, staging is hardly gets the love production does
[16:07] <tsimpson> maybe jcsackett knows more?
[16:20] <jcsackett> exarkun: staging gets used for testing our db changes. my understanding is that we've had db changes cause a problem in the staging update/restore.
[16:21] <jcsackett> exarkun: you can use qastaging.launchpad.net if you want to try something out.
[16:21] <exarkun> Okay.  So eventually it will come back, as soon as someone deals with those changes?
[16:21] <exarkun> I was trying to look at a bug import (that you did for me, thanks :).  Will that be on qastaging too?
[16:22] <jcsackett> exarkun: oh, of course.
[16:22] <jcsackett> (to what you needed staging for)
[16:22] <jcsackett> regrettably, i don't think that *will* be on qastaging. you can check, and if it is not i can see if we can import it there.
[16:23] <exarkun> It's not a big deal, I can wait.  This migration is on my back, back, back burner...
[16:23] <jcsackett> exarkun: understood. i can tell you staging will be brought back up as soon as we've sorted the issue.
[16:23] <exarkun> Cool, thanks.
[16:23] <jcsackett> exarkun: while it's true staging doesn't get the love production does, it is an important part of the lp development process, so we have a vested interest in getting back up asap. :-)
[17:27] <pedro__> hi from Vienna
[17:28] <pedro__> What action would you take if someone spams launchpad and you think you know the responsible company/person ?
[17:32] <pedro__> Really just nothin ?
[17:32] <EvilPhoenix> patience is a virtue dude
[17:33] <jcsackett> hi pedro__: can you point me to the spam in question?
[17:33] <jcsackett> conventionally we have a question opened at answers.launchpad.net/launchpad pointing to the spam and with all the relevant details.
[17:34] <jcsackett> if it's an lp user, we contact them and may disable their account, and we get the spam comments removed.
[17:34] <pedro__> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XO_Communications   /* diploma scam is the prob on launchpad - email address of user was faked also
[17:36] <jcsackett> pedro__: was the spam on launchpad, via a list, some other thing?
[17:37] <pedro__> hi Jsackett, sent you a spam investigation report  already
[17:40] <pedro__> I wrote already a letter to XO/Allegiance and did not get any reply yet - SPAM seems to be their business model
[17:41] <jcsackett> ah, pedro, you're one of the users i contacted via email some time ago?
[17:41]  * pedro__ goes for a walk
[17:46] <pedro__> jah
[17:46] <pedro__> so how many users got this problem ?
[17:48] <jcsackett> pedro__: as i said in the email, there were just a few spam comments. they have been dealt with.
[17:48] <jcsackett> if you can confirm that your email/lp accounts are not compromised, i would be happy to reactivate your account.
[17:50] <pedro__> not yet, I still got now answer from XO/Allegiance about the SPAM of their customers - waiting since last Thursday
[17:51] <pedro__> Can someone here proof if XO/Allegiance Telecom is supporting spammers ?
[17:52] <torkvemada> Hello all. Please, could anyone tell me, is there any progress with git import? I want to import rather large project with 7 submodules for packaging, but can't do this because submodules are not supported.
[17:54] <torkvemada> I would be happy even if tree was imported without submodules at all - as I realize, I can "emulate" them during packaging by nesting a number of branches. But there is no such import option :(
[17:57]  * pedro__ learns english till 25 years and is still a beginner in talking calm and friendly
[17:59] <jcsackett> pedro__: dealing with whatever compromised your email isn't a requisite for reactivating your account.
[17:59] <jcsackett> torkvemada: i see bug 402814 as being the source of info for your question.
[18:00] <jcsackett> is the very recent comment there you?
[18:00] <torkvemada> yes :)
[18:01] <torkvemada> but there's no progress info there since September.
[18:01] <jcsackett> yes, i see that.
[18:01] <torkvemada> I was hoping someone knows something more specific
[18:03] <pedro__> jcsacket - ok, lets try to reuse my launchpad account - you are my honeypot ;-)
[18:30] <bjf> i'm looking for the api documentation for login_with(), i normally use "production" or "staging" but want to use the "qastaging" server and can't remember if I just use the url instead of "staging" for the second parameter
[18:31] <leonardr> bjf: you should be able to use "qastaging"
[18:31] <bjf> leonardr, will give that a try
[18:42] <bjf> leonard, i'm getting: ValueError: qastaging is not a valid URL or an alias for any Launchpad server
[18:42] <bjf> leonardr, i believe i have to use the actual url
[18:44] <leonardr> bjf: you probably have an old version of launchpadlib. use the url for now
[18:44] <bjf> i'm running on Lucid
[18:44] <bjf> leonardr, ^
[18:45] <leonardr> bjf: yes, use the url until you upgrade to the maverick version
[18:48] <bjf> leonardr, will the maverick version install on lucid, being an lts it's going to be around for a while
[18:50] <leonardr> bjf: probably easier to just use the url. the maverick version has new dependencies not present in lucid
[18:50] <lifeless> ScottK: hi
[18:50] <ScottK> Hello lifeless.
[18:51] <ScottK> Let me see what I can scare up to accept.
[19:02] <ScottK> lifeless: Works.
[19:38] <lifeless> ScottK: ool
[19:38] <lifeless> *cool*
[20:44] <bjf> it's been so long since i've had to log in with a url that i've forgotten how, lp = Launchpad.login_with('lptest', 'https://qastaging.launchpad.net')  isn't working for me
[20:44] <bjf> i'm getting the authentication page and then a "Lost something?" page
[20:47] <james_w> bjf, service_root="https://api.qastaging.launchpad.net/" I think
[20:47] <james_w> though actually those symptoms sound like something other than getting that argument wrong
[20:48] <bjf> james_w, i think you got it, didn't get the "Lost something" this time
[20:48] <james_w> great
[20:51] <bjf> james_w, indeed, that was it, thanks for the help
[21:14] <arand> sinzui: Hi, how I seem to understand it is that things that can go in ubuntu "restricted" may also go in a PPA, and the terms of restricted are much more loose that that of dfsg or osi-approved...
[21:15] <arand> And that proprietary freeware can in fact go in "restricted", am I wrong here?
[21:17] <sinzui> arand: they can, but I think a commercial license is required. All the ones I know about have a license
[21:18] <arand> Ok, time to pull the packages down again...
[21:20] <sinzui> arand: I am looking for the actual agreement we signed. wait until I can confirm this
[21:20] <arand> sinzui: And this is not just for hosting a full project, rather than a PPA? (As was discussed on the mailing list)
[21:22] <sinzui> that is right. but the rules I know for both are largely ideentical now. There were not a few years ago, but now that you allow users to buy PPAs, I do not think there is a difference
[21:24] <arand> Well at the moment https://help.launchpad.net/PPATermsofUse Does state: "You understand and agree that any content you upload to PPAs must be freely redistributable by Canonical, and released under a license permitting redistribution free of charge. Acceptable licenses include those which fall under one or more of the following: (...) Ubuntu "main" and "restricted" Component license Policy Compliant.
[21:25] <arand> Hmm... that "and" there says it must comply with main, basically? In that case you would be very much incompatible with freeware.
[21:26] <sinzui> arand: " Ubuntu "main" and "restricted" Component license Policy Compliant" is not a license, ti is a separate set of rules
[21:31] <arand> Hmm, in those terms it seems that it's the noncommercialness of the software in question which is incompatible..
[21:34] <arand> "While Ubuntu will not charge licence fees for this distribution, you might want to charge to print Ubuntu CDs, or create your own customised versions of Ubuntu which you sell, and should have the freedom to do so." vs "can only redistribute unchanged"
[21:38] <arand> ...Along with the fact that the software contains several CC-*-NC items..
[21:38] <sinzui> arand: I think the crux of the issue is that PPAs (user archives) are not in main or restricted. Your package could be distributed in restricted, but it is will not be
[21:42] <sinzui> NC is a big no-no since it discriminates against a group
[21:42] <sinzui> or purpose
[21:44] <ScottK> NC would not  fall into main or restricted compliant.
[21:44] <arand> Oh, right, well that is definitely a clear incompatibility. Don't think that can be argued much.
[21:45] <ScottK> NC is OK for multiverse, but that's it.
[21:50] <arand> Right. *sigh*, time to go bug upstream. Though I guess this might take some time (since NC material is not theirs to start with, and needs replacing), anyways, thanks a lot for your time looking into this!
[21:56] <lifeless> arand: sinzui: hi
[21:56] <lifeless> arand: the PPA ToU are pretty clear to me, they permit pretty much anything
[21:57] <sinzui> lifeless: NC violates item 6
[21:59] <sinzui> lifeless, arand: the NC items violates item 6 of "Ubuntu 'main' and 'restricted' component licence policy", and NC is not accepted by OSI or DFSG
[22:00] <lifeless> sinzui: those rules are not required by PPAs
[22:00] <wgrant> lifeless: They are.
[22:00] <lifeless> not according to https://help.launchpad.net/PPATermsofUse
[22:00] <wgrant> lifeless: The only thing allowing non-free software in PPAs is the "Ubuntu 'main' and 'restricted' component licence policy" line.
[22:01] <lifeless> wgrant: read the doc
[22:01] <wgrant> Are you taking "You understand and agree that any content you upload to PPAs must be freely redistributable by Canonical, and released under a license permitting redistribution free of charge." as allowing NC content?
[22:02] <lifeless> yes
[22:02] <lifeless> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/
[22:02] <lifeless> freely redistributable by Canonical is permitted by 'to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work'
[22:02] <sinzui> We do not accept that, and we make it clear it is not accepted on that PPA ToS
[22:02] <wgrant> I know the license.
[22:02] <lifeless> redistribution free of charge is permitted by ''to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work + 'to Remix — to adapt the work'
[22:02] <wgrant> sinzui: It's not clear.
[22:03] <lifeless> sinzui: no, the PPA ToU help.l.n wiki page *does not say that*
[22:03] <wgrant> The first sentence' of the second paragraph of the ToU seems to allow it.
[22:03] <lifeless> we may wish to change it, but *as written* it clearly permits it
[22:04] <sinzui> I think that is the case, the main/restricted component is not like the licneses/rules listed
[22:04] <lifeless> sinzui: the main component is given as *an example*
[22:04] <wgrant> So, as I said a couple of days ago, changing this is somewhat problematic.
[22:04] <lifeless> sinzui: not as *a constraint*
[22:04] <wgrant> As it may forbid eg. testing of multiverse packages in PPAs.
[22:04] <sinzui> I do not want to ever get into another argument (ie exception debate) about NC. Until Corporate says Lp allows it, I will not allow it
[22:05] <lifeless> sinzui: then we *must* change the wiki page because it clearly permits CC-NC, adobe acrobat and others.
[22:06] <lifeless> [well, perhaps not adobe, it might not have the transitiveness we need]
[22:06] <wgrant> No, Adobe Reader is still bad.
[22:06] <sinzui> lifeless:  we allow partners to buy exceptions. It is in their contract
[22:06] <lifeless> sinzui: our docs say that the constraints are: ' freely redistributable by Canonical, and released under a license permitting redistribution free of charge'
[22:06] <lifeless> sinzui: how does CC-BY-NC violate that
[22:07] <ScottK> If that's all it says than NC is fine.
[22:07] <ScottK> than/then
[22:07]  * ScottK thought from the discussion it was redistributable and OK for main or restricted.
[22:07] <lifeless> sinzui: are there other docs we should know about (e.g. internal, historical communication with -legal, etc?)
[22:07] <lifeless> ScottK: https://help.launchpad.net/PPATermsofUse is the link we use in the web UI to tell users the rules
[22:08] <sinzui> lifeless: I said I will not argue this any more. I will not let people kick be about, call me a hypocrite or a liar again. Someone higher up can changes the rules, but I will not participate in it
[22:09] <wgrant> ScottK: It seems pretty clearly fine, but I think we all think the doc is wrong.
[22:09] <ScottK> wgrant: As I read it the list is examplary and the key point is redistributable by Canonical.
[22:09] <lifeless> sinzui: I'm sorry you feel attacked; I'm really not trying to do that. I'm trying to make sure that we don't have a stream of users thinking they can do something we don't want them to because our docs say they can.
[22:09] <ScottK> NC certainly is.
[22:09] <wgrant> ScottK: Yup.
[22:10] <lifeless> flacoste: ping
[22:10] <lifeless> sinzui: I certainly appreciate the higher-up constraint, so lets start escalating up the mgmt chain.
[22:10] <lifeless> joey: ping - you edited the PPA ToU page, and we have some confusion about it
[22:11] <joey> howdy lifeless
[22:11] <joey> lifeless: this one? https://help.launchpad.net/PPATermsofUse
[22:11] <lifeless> joey: hi, we appear to have a mismatch between our internalised model of what can go in a PPA and https://help.launchpad.net/PPATermsofUse
[22:12] <lifeless> joey: the PPA docs seem to set two cconstraints and give some exemplary examples that meet those constraints
[22:12] <sinzui> lifeless: I do not think anyone is being bad here. It is simply a matter that this issue comes up and the answer has been NC subverts our intent. We corrected other policies where we discovered out intent was subverted
[22:12] <ScottK> sinzui: What intent does it subvert?
[22:12] <ScottK> The ability to raise revenue for non-commercial content?
[22:12] <ScottK> I doubt that'll be a big money maker.
[22:13] <lifeless> ScottK: we want to contribute resources to FOSS community participants
[22:13] <lifeless> ScottK: we don't want to contribute to proprietary efforts; and we offer for-pay services for them
[22:13] <lifeless> ScottK: this is particularly interested for folk that are dabbling in FOSS, and or transitioning
[22:13] <joey> if I understand correctly, a) you (lifeless) should formulate this in an email to amanda and b) I believe you are correct. NC is not at odds with redistribution
[22:14] <joey> lifeless: the main goal there was not to have things in a public PPA which would violate Ubuntu's model
[22:15] <joey> lifeless: it may need to be updated though given the success of software center
[22:15] <lifeless> jml: are you gone yet ?
[22:15] <wgrant> This matches Ubuntu's model well.
[22:15] <wgrant> But it's not clear how correct that is for LP.
[22:15] <lifeless> wgrant: given the confusion, to what are you binding this?
[22:15] <joey> lifeless: for history, this is a stevea + joey + amanda  deal with input by mdz via stevea.
[22:17] <joey> however I can't say that NC should or can be there. You'd need amanda for that
[22:17] <lifeless> joey: sinzui: I think we need to do two things : We need to discuss the policy aspect, and depending on how that goes we need to double-check with amanda on the NC case.
[22:17] <ScottK> "Acceptable licenses include ..." is pretty clear that the list is examplary.
[22:18] <joey> ScottK: yeah I bargained for that in case other acceptable licenses came along later
[22:18] <lifeless> ScottK: this may be a case of left-hand right-hand
[22:18] <ScottK> Since NC is allowed in Multiverse, it fits with the "Ubuntu model" too.
[22:18] <joey> ScottK: to allow for a case by case evaluatoin
[22:19] <ScottK> The only clear rule given is "Must be redistributable".
[22:19] <joey> lifeless: the other thing I should note was that when we wrote the ppa tos, LP was on track to be a commercial application so it might be worth a bit of a rethink
[22:19] <joey> ScottK: well.... there is the battlenet  daemon
[22:19] <joey> ScottK: in that case we include it even though in some countries, e.g. USA, it's a crime to have it installed
[22:20] <lifeless> joey: 'crime'
[22:20] <joey> lifeless: yeah :-)
[22:20] <ScottK> Crime or violation of civil law for which one can be sued?
[22:20] <joey> anyway, I hope this helps
[22:20] <joey> ScottK: wikipedia has a reasonably good discourse on it
[22:21] <joey> ScottK: my concern was whether Canonical would be accused of something, get sued, etc..
[22:21] <ScottK> Crime is a word that gets overused.
[22:21] <joey> ScottK: was just a use case that was present when we wrote that up
[22:21] <lifeless> joey: sinzui: I will mail the internal list about the policy aspect
[22:21] <lifeless> and we'll see where it goes
[22:21] <ScottK> Any time you distribute something there's a risk.
[22:21] <wgrant> ScottK: DMCA, yay.
[22:22] <joey> lifeless:  I'm not on there so if you want me to comment on anything in the future, just cc me please
[22:22] <ScottK> wgrant: At least we aren't trying to set up a giant border router for 'the safety of the children'.
[22:22] <lifeless> arand: if you can take the packages down for a few days - say till monday - we'll get our internal inconsistencies sorted out and come back with a clear message about the constraints.
[22:22] <wgrant> ScottK: Fair point.
[22:22] <lifeless> arand: I don't know whether the current ones will end up ok or not, I suggest not stressing any which way until we have this figured out.
[22:23] <ScottK> lifeless: I do hope you come up with something that outsiders can read and determine accurately if their content is acceptable.
[22:23] <lifeless> ScottK: thats an important metric and why we're having this discussion :)
[22:23] <joey> We did have a larger list of items but that was shot down when I did the current version
[22:24] <joey> however most of that went into the project details page
[22:24] <joey> i.e. select the license this project falls under
[22:24] <joey> I don't recall the reason why it was shot down on the ppa though
[22:24] <joey> probably not important any longer whatever is was
[22:26] <joey> and lifeless, I know it is more work, but you may also want to go through all the docs at https://help.launchpad.net/Legal to ensure they are still correct
[22:26] <lifeless> joey: thanks :P
[22:26] <joey> afaik, they haven't been touched since I moved off LP
[22:26] <sinzui> joey: archives contain heterogeneous packages. selecting a license does not make sense
[22:27] <sinzui> that is the same reason that distros do not have licenses.
[22:27] <joey> If you can make that point to legal, more power to you
[22:28] <ScottK> It's a multi-select option in project setup.
[22:28] <ScottK> You can pick multiple licenses.
[22:28] <joey> right
[22:28] <joey> I would have thought for 99% of all PPAs out there that a multi-check box setup would be acceptable
[22:28] <joey> especially since one of those boxes is "other"
[22:29] <joey> and in truth, we have private ppas which hold programs which violate the TOS
[22:29] <joey> for which I point you to cody-somerville for details
[22:30] <joey> in fairness the TOS was meant to cover public PPAs not private PPAs
[22:31] <sinzui> joey: private ppas are exempt. We are happy to ask for money to enable them
[22:37] <lifeless> mail sent
[23:19] <micahg> lifeless: wgrant I've got another copy-packages timeout
[23:19] <wgrant> micahg: Do you have an OOPS ID?
[23:19] <micahg> OOPS-1908M2288
[23:44] <wgrant> micahg: That's bug #733071. I've not seen it that bad for a single source before, though :/
[23:47] <micahg> wgrant: thanks