[00:21] <Quintasan> yofel: the question is
[00:22] <Quintasan> if it has provides flashplugin-nonfree
[00:22] <Quintasan> then why is restricted extras installer still whining about lack of flash
[00:30] <murthy> yofel: if one of the copyright in a file reads "2011-2012, Hugo Lindström <hugolm84@gmail.com>" and another files contains "2010-2011, Hugo Lindström <hugolm84@gmail.com>" should i group them as "2010-2012, Hugo Lindström <hugolm84@gmail.com>" in debian/copyright ?
[00:31] <Quintasan> murthy: Yes.
[00:32] <murthy> Quintasan: what is the later year signify ?
[00:33] <murthy> Quintasan: expiry of license ?  
[00:33] <Quintasan> murthy: I'm not a copyright expert but I imagine it could mean that that certain individual made contribution to the code during those years
[00:34] <apachelogger> yeah
[00:34] <murthy> the years of contribution
[00:34] <apachelogger> licenses do not expire (unless the license says so...)
[00:35] <murthy> apachelogger: 50% of tomahawk copyright file update is over
[00:35] <apachelogger> copyright in most countries does however
[00:35] <Quintasan> apachelogger: there is one thing that is not clear to me
[00:35] <Quintasan> say
[00:35] <apachelogger> so the date of when a copyrighted contribution was made is significant for that
[00:35] <Quintasan> let us suppose I made changes to the code in 2011
[00:35] <apachelogger> and just about only that really ^^
[00:35] <Quintasan> and it was under gpl2 at that time and they decided to go gpl3 in 2013
[00:36] <Quintasan> what is the actual license
[00:36] <Quintasan> ?
[00:36] <apachelogger> both?
[00:36] <murthy> gpl2+?
[00:36] <apachelogger> simple example...
[00:36] <apachelogger> say there is foo.cpp and that was gpl2
[00:36] <apachelogger> then they rewrite it completely and license that gpl3
[00:36] <murthy> oh, the actual license
[00:37] <apachelogger> the former version is gpl2 and the new is gpl3
[00:37] <apachelogger> course that is not practical
[00:37] <murthy> ya both are differennt
[00:37] <apachelogger> so if they did not rewrite it and the code remained exactly the same it's still both
[00:37] <Quintasan> apachelogger: so it is gpl2+gpl3?
[00:37] <apachelogger> i.e. you can license it gpl2 and say it was derived from the old version
[00:37] <apachelogger> Quintasan: no
[00:38] <apachelogger> the code has different licensing depending on the time the code is from
[00:38] <Quintasan> Yeah, I can understand that
[00:38] <apachelogger> so if the code remained the same you can license it gpl2 or gpl3 as there is no difference
[00:38] <murthy> apachelogger: thats why they specify gpl2 or later
[00:38] <Quintasan> oh my god
[00:38] <Quintasan> so it can be either gpl3 or gpl2?
[00:39] <apachelogger> well
[00:39] <apachelogger> yes
[00:39] <apachelogger> ... a derived work may be
[00:39] <Quintasan> apachelogger: say you have to write copyright for such  code
[00:39] <apachelogger> for the actual work it was gpl2 in 2011 and gpl3 in 2013
[00:39] <Quintasan> which license do you classify that as?
[00:39] <apachelogger> if you package the 2013 version gpl3
[00:39] <apachelogger> if you package the 2011 version gpl2
[00:40] <Quintasan> I see.
[00:40] <apachelogger> murthy: has nothing to do with gpl2 or later really
[00:40] <apachelogger> I can license something gpl2 and 2 only
[00:40] <apachelogger> then later relicense to gpl3
[00:40] <apachelogger> as long as the code is copyrighted by me I may relicense as often as I want etc.
[00:40] <Quintasan> That's why I hate doing debian/copyright
[00:41] <Quintasan> It's a freaking law mumbojumbo and unless you know the details you can't make a sense out of it
[00:41] <apachelogger> gpl2 or later only has impact on derived work
[00:41] <apachelogger> so I create a piece of work and license it gpl2+
[00:41] <apachelogger> Quintasan:  then takes my code and uses it in another project
[00:42] <apachelogger> he may then license this project gpl3 including my code
[00:42] <Quintasan> and the whole project would be licensed under gpl3
[00:42] <Quintasan> man
[00:42] <apachelogger> doesn't need to be
[00:43] <apachelogger> can be gpl2+ or gpl3+
[00:43] <apachelogger> or both
[00:43] <Quintasan> loo
[00:43] <Quintasan> lo
[00:43] <Quintasan> lol
[00:43] <apachelogger> cannot be gpl2 and gpl3+ though
[00:43]  * Quintasan can't get used to the new keyboard
[00:43] <apachelogger> as gpl2 and gpl3 are not compatible
[00:43] <murthy> Quintasan: i have fat fingers
[00:43] <murthy> Quintasan: happens all the time
[00:44] <apachelogger> i.e. if Quintasan were to use gpl2+ and gpl3+ in the context of the project everything woudl be gpl3+
[00:44] <Quintasan> murthy: I have a new laptop and I never had one so it's kind like a new keyboard
[00:44] <apachelogger> however I can take out invidual pieces of the gpl2+ code and put it in a gpl2+ project without havign to uplicense
[00:44] <Quintasan> oh wow
[00:44] <murthy> Quintasan: oh
[00:45] <Quintasan> apachelogger: If somebody would be stubborn enough to go to court saying someone if violating his copyright
[00:45] <Quintasan> he would actually lose the case
[00:45] <Quintasan> ?
[00:45] <Quintasan> this is like magic
[00:45] <apachelogger> in what scenario?
[00:45] <Quintasan> in the scenario you outlined
[00:45] <murthy> Quintasan: the judge will pull his hair off
[00:46] <Quintasan> like I reuse your code which is under gpl2+ in my gpl3+ project
[00:46] <apachelogger> Quintasan: yeah which one? what are the licenses and what did the infringing party do? :P
[00:46] <apachelogger> Quintasan: no problem there
[00:46] <Quintasan> so you would lose in courte
[00:46] <Quintasan> court
[00:46] <apachelogger> my code remains gpl2+
[00:47] <murthy> apachelogger: ah i remeber seeing a part of the code marked as a different  license from rest of the file
[00:48] <Quintasan> now I understand why people hate doing copyright part of packaging
[00:48] <Quintasan> it's sometimes a total mess
[00:48] <apachelogger> if it were gpl2 and you include it with gpl3 software and you'd not do what the gpl2 requires you to do, then you would be committing a license violation
[00:49] <apachelogger> murthy: any number of licenses may be mixed in even one code file, the licenses just need to be compatible with one another
[00:49] <Quintasan> ..
[00:49] <Quintasan> apachelogger: What do you do when they are not compatible?
[00:50]  * Quintasan already hears "poke upstream"
[00:50] <apachelogger> license violation for the better part of free software licenses
[00:50] <apachelogger> e.g. gpl is pretty clear about it not being compatible with anything that limits the freedoms outlined in the gpl
[00:51] <apachelogger> also duties for that matter
[00:51] <apachelogger> really gpl is very anal in every aspect :P
[00:51] <Quintasan> hmm
[00:52] <Quintasan> apachelogger: say I have piece of code that has BSD 2-clause, BSD 3-clause and GPLv3
[00:52] <Quintasan> is that going to work?
[00:52] <apachelogger> nope
[00:52] <apachelogger> gpl3 ensures freedom of the code
[00:52] <apachelogger> bsd does not
[00:52]  * Quintasan has to study licenses then
[00:53] <Quintasan> who would have thought I would have to become a lawyer to be a packager
[00:53] <Quintasan> :D
[00:53] <apachelogger> gpl2 requires you to publish the entire work's source
[00:53] <apachelogger> bsd does not
[00:53] <murthy> apachelogger: in case an author has done work in 2011 with emailid1 and in 2012 with emailid2 should i use emailid2 ?
[00:54] <apachelogger> or was it some other license that was incompatible
[00:54] <Quintasan> I'd use the email2
[00:54] <apachelogger> eheh
[00:54] <apachelogger> Quintasan: don't listen to me, I am drunk :P
[00:54] <Quintasan> implying I'm sober
[00:54] <murthy> apachelogger: gpl3 is created when secure boot was launched?
[00:54] <apachelogger> murthy: I'd use email2
[00:54] <apachelogger> what with it beng apparently more up to date
[00:54] <Quintasan> yeah
[00:54] <Quintasan> same logic process as apachelogger
[00:55] <Quintasan> proves I'm going insane
[00:55] <murthy> ok
[00:55] <murthy> Quintasan: too much of copyright intoxification
[00:55] <Quintasan> murthy: If you find yourself thing as apachelogger would do then it's time to take a break
[00:55] <Quintasan> I'm serious
[00:56] <Quintasan> thinking as apachelogger*
[00:57]  * Quintasan can't type
[00:57] <Quintasan> apachelogger: I ignored the first symptoms so it's already too late for me
[00:57] <apachelogger> ohm
[00:57] <apachelogger> Quintasan: you can mix gpl and bsd
[00:57] <Quintasan> ...
[00:57] <Quintasan> seriously?
[00:57] <apachelogger> however you need to publish the entire work
[00:57] <apachelogger> i.e. the entire work is then gpl
[00:57] <apachelogger> you can pick foo.cpp which is bsd and use it as bsd in another project
[00:58] <Quintasan> but you can use it as gpl is another project?
[00:58] <apachelogger> but within source base A even foo.cpp is gpl
[00:58] <Quintasan> oh my god
[00:58] <apachelogger> Quintasan: bsd is permissive so you can really do anything with it, it does not have to be remain a license of same freedom
[00:58] <apachelogger> with gpl it has to though
[00:59] <murthy> apachelogger: i didn't like vlc re-licensing its backend to lgpl
[00:59] <apachelogger> it made perfect sense and was the reasonable thing to do
[00:59] <murthy> apachelogger: will stallman like that?
[00:59] <Quintasan> murthy: well, they are upstream, they can do with their license whatever they want to as long as the contributors agree
[01:00] <apachelogger> who gives a shit?
[01:00] <Quintasan> murthy: rms is a controversial charater in open source community IMO
[01:00] <murthy> apachelogger: what are you talking?
[01:00] <murthy> i like him and his vision
[01:01] <Quintasan> on one hand I agree with him but on the other hand what he says has no relation to the actual world of copyrights and whatnot
[01:01] <apachelogger> Quintasan: generally you simply have to be careful how you think about code ... there is the indivual copyrighted work (which may be a function) and there is the entire code of a binary artifact (e.g. an executable)... the licenses may not necessarily be the same
[01:01] <apachelogger> as in that bsd & gpl example
[01:01] <apachelogger> only the source has multiple licenses, however the gpl requires one to be able to replicate the executable that relies on gpl code, so the code of the binary is defacto gpl
[01:02] <Quintasan> that kind of implies the rest of the code has to be gpl
[01:02] <apachelogger> murthy: I tend to not care what one single person thinks about anything
[01:02] <Quintasan> Exactly
[01:03] <murthy> apachelogger: its GNU LINUX
[01:03] <apachelogger> Quintasan: the code is not gpl
[01:03] <apachelogger> the work is
[01:03] <apachelogger> as I said
[01:03] <Quintasan> BUT the binary is
[01:03] <apachelogger> foo.cpp on its own is still BSD
[01:03] <Quintasan> but binary is licensed on gpl
[01:03] <apachelogger> but since binary foo is gpl because it was built from partial gpl code even foo.cpp needs to be handled in accordance with the gpl
[01:03] <Quintasan> heh
[01:04]  * Quintasan slowly goes insane from license mumbojumbo
[01:04] <apachelogger> so if the gpl says you need to print each line of code on toilet paper that is what you need to do with foo.cpp's code ^^
[01:04] <apachelogger> Quintasan: hehe
[01:04] <apachelogger> now that's of course one source only...
[01:04] <apachelogger> it gets fun when talking about libraries :P
[01:04] <apachelogger> also less clear :P
[01:05] <Quintasan> I can imagine KDE licensing policy is not the strangest one I can ge
[01:05] <Quintasan> get*
[01:05] <apachelogger> or in general runtime loaded binary artifacts
[01:05] <Quintasan> like half of the code is under gpl3+
[01:05] <Quintasan> 1/3 is under GPLv3
[01:05] <Quintasan> GPLv2
[01:06] <Quintasan> and the rest is under GPLv2+
[01:06] <apachelogger> actually there's huge amounts of LGPL code :P
[01:07] <apachelogger> except for cmake foo most stuff is (L)GPL fortunately enough
[01:07] <apachelogger> so yeah, not too strange
[01:33] <Darkwing> It always amazing me how free and open licencing is often more confusing than copyright. Also, that it causes more fights than copyright.
[02:44] <murthy> apachelogger: one of the class file contains this http://paste.kde.org/678890/ . there is no license type specified , what should i put in in debian/copyright?
[02:47] <murthy> apachelogger: if lgpl v2.1 is i should put LGPL-2 or LGPL-2+ ?
[02:48] <murthy> apachelogger: if lgpl v2.1 is *used*as license type i should put LGPL-2 or LGPL-2+ ?
[03:21] <murthy> there are certain files with custom license, what should i put in debian/copyright
[03:23] <murthy> example for the above http://paste.kde.org/678920/
[03:51] <yofel> murthy_: That's BSD-3-Clause
[03:51] <yofel> murthy_: and lgpl v2.1 is LGPL-2.1
[04:13] <shadeslayer> yofel: like any usual FOSS trip, no sleep, loads of fixing Kubuntu
[04:15] <shadeslayer> yofel: Quintasan what fix?
[05:05] <shadeslayer> yofel: oh and ofcourse, shitty wifi
[06:29] <shadeslayer> mmmm
[06:32] <shadeslayer> oh
[06:32] <shadeslayer> bah
[06:32] <shadeslayer> yofel: Riddell should have taken care of that
[06:53] <murthy> shadeslayer: good morning
[06:53] <shadeslayer> hi
[06:54] <murthy> shadeslayer: are you fixing bugs for kde?
[06:54] <shadeslayer> right now? nope
[06:55] <murthy> shadeslayer: are you familiar with kwallet code?
[06:55] <shadeslayer> npope
[06:55] <shadeslayer> nope
[06:55] <murthy> shadeslayer: plasma?
[06:56] <shadeslayer> a *bit*
[06:57] <murthy> shadeslayer:  there is a bug i need to fix, i am not getting much support
[06:57] <shadeslayer> #plasma ?
[06:58] <murthy> shadeslayer: they give me imperfect solutions
[06:58] <shadeslayer> oh, can you pastebin the logs?
[06:58] <murthy> shadeslayer: i will tell the steps to reproduce
[06:58] <shadeslayer> okay
[06:59] <murthy> shadeslayer: use the microblogger widget and configure it. when you want to save the settings, just press the apply button and ok button simultaneously and fast
[07:00] <murthy> shadeslayer: simultaneously=in sequence
[07:01] <shadeslayer> okay, will try once I have some time
[07:01] <murthy> shadeslayer: sure
[07:01] <murthy> shadeslayer: just one thing
[07:04] <murthy> shadeslayer: I feel that some process is initiated when the apply button is clicked, but it gets terminated when i press the ok button , this also happens with the background wallpaper change, you are going to test it, apply a wallpaper thats not in the list
[07:04] <murthy> shadeslayer: i will give you the bug id
[07:05] <murthy> shadeslayer: https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=300708
[07:05] <murthy> shadeslayer: https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=302267
[07:06] <murthy> shadeslayer: for the last bug, only the crashing of plasma have to be taken care 
[07:07] <murthy> yofel: server up?
[07:07] <shadeslayer> awesome
[07:07] <shadeslayer> yes, wallpaper stuff is actually a bug
[07:08] <murthy> shadeslayer: can you reproduce it?
[07:08] <murthy> shadeslayer: use a hd image
[07:29] <murthy> shadeslayer: When i run debuild -S for a libdlna package i can't see errors which are listed by a sponsor who tested, What am i doing wrong ? http://paste.ubuntu.com/5557229/
[08:37] <yofel> murthy_: it'll be going down now actually
[10:06] <soee> good morning
[13:03] <Quintasan> Hi
[13:03] <Quintasan> yofel: Seems like everything works
[13:03] <yofel> yeah, just the session auto-restore failed
[13:16] <Quintasan> but the rest works
[13:20] <claydoh> will there be a dvd iso for 12.04.2? 
[13:25] <yofel> claydoh: I don't think those were even built for 12.04.2
[13:25] <claydoh> ubuntu has em
[13:25] <yofel> but I guess we could make some for 12.04.3 when we get the new kernel etc. in
[13:26] <yofel> claydoh: I think you need to send in a list of images that you want to update
[13:26] <yofel> ScottK or Riddell will know more
[13:26] <claydoh> yofel: someone in the forum was asking, seemed odd it wasnt there
[13:28] <yofel> Riddell: btw. do you remember what kernel changes we did in the end for 12.04.2? Someone in #kubuntu reported that 12.04.2 doesn't work on non-pae CPU's
[13:29] <yofel> (the install image)
[13:29] <claydoh> I notice xubuntu does not either, edubuntu does, and lubuntu doesn't have 12.04.2 at all yet
[13:30] <yofel> as I said, you need to request updated images. We only did for the desktop and alternate ones
[13:36] <claydoh> thanks for the info, yofel
[14:18] <BluesKaj> Hey all
[14:24]  * smartboyhw says hi to Riddell 
[14:48] <smartboyhw> OK calligra finally worked:)
[14:55] <Quintasan> woah
[14:55] <Quintasan> gj smartboyhw
[14:56] <smartboyhw> Quintasan, that's not joke it finally worked:)
[14:56] <Quintasan> and how did you come to conclusion I was joking
[14:56] <Quintasan> I'm always serio...oh wait
[14:56] <Quintasan> nevermind :P
[14:57] <Quintasan> Nonethless, good job.
[14:57] <smartboyhw> :P
[15:49] <ScottK> claydoh: We don't usually for point releases, but we could if there was a volunteer to test.
[15:51] <smartboyhw> ScottK, test what?
[15:51] <ScottK> An updated dvd for 12.04.3.
[15:52] <smartboyhw> ScottK, well I'll be fine to test these images, but preferably we need more than one person to test
[15:58] <sheytan> apachelogger: ping
[16:09] <sheytan> apachelogger: v.1: http://wstaw.org/m/2013/02/23/login2-no-bg2.png
[16:09] <sheytan> v.2: v
[16:09] <sheytan> http://wstaw.org/m/2013/02/23/login2-no-bg.png
[16:39] <claydoh> ScottK: thanks, it was only one user looking for the dvd iso and asking why, so not a verified need for one at this point. I can definitely test this too if it comes up.
[16:47] <claydoh> ScottK: though there are dvd images for Hardy and Lucid
[17:07] <ScottK> Oh, I guess we didn't feel like it. 
[17:10] <claydoh> ScottK: lol
[17:39] <Quintasan> yofel: Any experiences with fingerprint reading?
[17:40]  * Quintasan tries
[17:52] <Quintasan> what the hell
[18:15] <yofel> Quintasan: not really, thinkwiki has some pointers I believe
[18:16] <genii-around> I used before FingerprintGUI with kdm and pam but it's been a while
[18:17] <shadeslayer> wheee
[18:17] <shadeslayer> I'm going to try and put ubuntu on my phone :)
[18:42] <Quintasan> well
[18:42] <Quintasan> genii-around, yofel: well fml
[18:43] <Quintasan> fingerprint gui does not autodetect it in the dropdown menu
[18:43] <Quintasan> but I can manually select the device
[18:43] <Quintasan> it goes to next screen
[18:43] <Quintasan> and I can actually scan my fingerprints
[18:43] <Quintasan> but it does not get past scan/verify stage
[18:44] <Quintasan> in other words it asks me to scan my finger 4 times in a loop
[18:44] <Quintasan> brilliant
[18:44] <Quintasan> If fingerprint scanning was working I would say this laptop is too good to be true
[19:36] <genii-around> Quintasan: Do you have some line in your /etc/pam.d/kdm  (or lightdm) like auth optional pam_fingerprint-gui.so -d     ?
[19:40]  * yofel gives kmail another try
[19:45] <yofel> hm, at least the speed seems to have improved some in 4.10
[19:46]  * Riddell blogs http://blogs.kde.org/2013/02/23/cool-kde-users
[19:47] <yofel> kde bug 277912 is still no fixed :(
[19:47] <yofel> *not
[19:48] <yofel> Riddell++
[19:48] <shadeslayer> fun, the servers are overloaded :|
[19:51] <yofel> wait, what o.O?
[19:51] <yofel> I set my mail account to go offline on kmail shutdown and it suddenly chooses the right trash folder
[19:51] <yofel> wf
[19:51] <yofel> wtf
[19:52]  * shadeslayer is sad
[19:54]  * yofel passes shadeslayer a fresh mug of coffee
[19:54] <shadeslayer> yofel: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Touch/Porting
[19:54] <yofel> maybe useful at.. 2:30 am? ^^
[19:56] <shadeslayer> server overloaded
[19:56] <shadeslayer> so you can't clone stuff
[20:00] <yofel> shadeslayer: github overloaded o.O?
[20:00] <shadeslayer> the ubuntu servers
[20:00] <yofel> ah
[20:01] <yofel> still weird
[20:01] <shadeslayer> yus
[22:44] <tsdgeos> guys can anyone repro this? https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=315703
[22:45] <tsdgeos> Riddell: apachelogger: shadeslayer: ↑↑↑
[22:45] <Riddell> tsdgeos: 0.16.0?
[22:45] <tsdgeos> Riddell: that's the okular version number
[22:46] <Riddell> oh right, don't think I've tried 4.10 on 12.04 but I'll load up a virtual machine now
[22:48] <Riddell> works in raring
[22:50] <yofel> works in precise in virtualbox
[22:51] <yofel> tsdgeos: I can't reproduce it here...
[22:51] <tsdgeos> ok, tx