=== micahg_ is now known as micahg [01:24] hey guys, anyone around? [01:29] can someone bump the priority of https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-cloud-archive/+archive/cloud-tools-staging/+build/5187073 for me [01:30] i'd really like to get that through to the cloud-archive earlier than "8 hours" [01:30] bigjools, can you do that i wonder? [01:30] i'm walking away now, but if someone could dlo that i'd really appreciate it. [01:30] than [01:30] smoser: ask webops [01:30] ? [01:31] they will do it for you, I can't any more === TalkingMuffin is now known as Pici [08:16] cjwatson do you have admin joy across Launchpad? [10:43] Since https://answers.launchpad.net/launchpad/+question/237445 just expired. I guess you can practically host proprietary software on launchpad for free? [11:08] wgrant: ^ === mgzh is now known as mgz [11:15] JonnyJD_: That question fell through the cracks, apparently. But the software in question is acceptable for distribution in a PPA, though the service is not intended for, and we discourage its use in, the distribution of non-free software. [11:15] wgrant: ah okay. === BradCrittenden is now known as bac [13:03] Fudge: Not in general. I have some privileges [13:04] Particularly in relation to Ubuntu === maxb_ is now known as maxb === BradCrittenden is now known as bac === mpt_ is now known as mpt === caktux_ is now known as caktux === verterok` is now known as verterok [19:19] cjwatson I can crack on with it, just have not had any luck yet. [19:34] Your problem as you previously described it doesn't require any special privileges [19:37] ./remove-package -p vinux --ppa-name=precise-updates -s precise -a armel -a armhf -a powerpc -b -m "remove extra archs Vinux does not support" firefox firefox-dev firefox-dbg ... (I'm not going to work out all the binary package names involved here) [19:37] (I didn't notice your mistake with -p/--ppa-name when you last commented) [19:38] FWIW you'd have got an answer more quickly if you'd said what error you were encountering :-) [19:40] cjwatson thank you, I didn't want to bother you :$ [21:26] very helpful thank you so much :D [22:52] are licensing terms implied from a merge proposal? [22:53] what if I receive a merge proposal without any license/copyright notice? [22:53] can I add it myself for the author, or do they have to? [22:57] There's nothing special about merge proposals for this purpose. You can substitute "patch" for "merge proposal" and the question is exactly the same. [22:57] The answer may well depend on your jurisdiction or something and I don't think I want to attempt to answer it in case it might count as legal advice ... [22:58] The safe answer is to ask the author, of course [22:58] I believe organisations like the FSF have some general guidance on this kind of thing [22:58] I would take legal advice from unknown people in IRC, don't worry [22:59] yeah I think it's safer requesting the author... [22:59] I just wondered if that was something no one cared about... [22:59] For instance https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/maintain.html#Legally-Significant is what the FSF thinks [22:59] (Though I've also seen assertions that that's US-centric advice) [23:00] like when TLS flaws exposed basically whole internet, and no one gave a damn [23:00] *I would *NOT* take legal advice from unknown people in IRC, don't worry [23:01] I remember reading something about 10 lines... for copyright purposes... [23:03] thanks anyway cjwatson, I went for the safe option: https://code.launchpad.net/~vlad-lesin/pidgin-ircaway/easy_build/+merge/170990 [23:04] I suspect all this stuff winds up in case law and hence is hideously difficult to dig out [23:04] Don't think I've ever heard of statute law that sets a minimum number of lines or anything like that