Path: csiph.com!news.mixmin.net!aioe.org!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod From: Craig Small Newsgroups: linux.debian.maint.python Subject: Re: bringing python-django-registration back into testing, dfsg issues Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2022 00:30:01 +0200 Message-ID: References: X-Original-To: "debian-python@lists.debian.org" X-Mailbox-Line: From debian-python-request@lists.debian.org Mon Sep 26 22:26:19 2022 Old-Return-Path: X-Amavis-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.192 tagged_above=-10000 required=5.3 tests=[BAYES_00=-2, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.082, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FOURLA=0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=2, LDO_WHITELIST=-5, USER_IN_DKIM_WELCOMELIST=-0.01, USER_IN_DKIM_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no X-Policyd-Weight: using cached result; rate: -3.5 X-Greylist: delayed 457 seconds by postgrey-1.36 at bendel; Mon, 26 Sep 2022 22:25:59 UTC X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf0wE2yh3YuEY7aNOZnqP0+4RAh8pWoZLPXF+i4coVohU5DoEADW GWyJxrOETawz6u6sxubbfLCbRyv+9Vxq/j0iX27lKA== X-Google-SMTP-Source: AMsMyM7nkQfb+IYUhyKL0wrbizAiqArWOtLlekMmqP2ouzLugQNjH9EMeaDOPL9fgxpJqWYzhuY0ePKx0MT63FHjMGg= X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:c05:b0:73d:6e0a:8d22 with SMTP id ga5-20020a1709070c0500b0073d6e0a8d22mr20715749ejc.646.1664230670685; Mon, 26 Sep 2022 15:17:50 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f3749405e99be5ed" X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/20346 List-ID: List-URL: List-Archive: https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/CALy8Cw5rv7RntVKWBMHnq2Fmz92qY=q+=9dc69LOeb8T8u0f-Q@mail.gmail.com Approved: robomod@news.nic.it Lines: 112 Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway Sender: robomod@news.nic.it X-Original-Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2022 08:17:39 +1000 X-Original-Message-ID: X-Original-References: Xref: csiph.com linux.debian.maint.python:14501 --000000000000f3749405e99be5ed Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 26 Sept 2022 at 19:18, Elena ``of Valhalla'' Grandi < valhalla@debian.org> wrote: > http://www.unicode.org/Public/UNIDATA/Scripts.txt > http://www.unicode.org/Public/security/latest/confusables.txt > which, if my understanding of https://www.unicode.org/copyright.html is > correct aren't DFSG, but could be redistributed. > Given they sit under Public aren't they DATA FILES and subject to https://www.unicode.org/license.txt That license seems very BSD 3-Clause-ish. I suppose it comes down to what "Further specification" means. Does it mean license.txt overrules copyright.html? You could ask debian-legal for guidance. Do you think it is ok to upload the package like this? > It's not ideal but if the result is you cannot use those confusables then its the only way forward. > 2) Even if the answer to 1 is yes, I can also try to package > confusable_homoglyphs: upstream can download the files from the unicode > consortium if they aren't available: do you think it's better to use > that ability and package the file in contrib, or just put everything in > non-free? > > Personally, the latter sounds quite easier, and I would be strongly > tempted by it. > I have a similar problem with SNMP MIBs (thanks IETF). They're not even redistributable so I have a contrib mibs-downloader package. If the system can do it itself, that's ok but it needs to be something that the user knows is happening. I have had issues with WordPress before where it has links in some of the themes. So in summary: * See if license.txt is the actual license and its DFSG free (I think it could be) * If not, I'd package the files in a separate archive - Craig --=20 > Elena ``of Valhalla'' > > =F0=9F=A7=9B > --000000000000f3749405e99be5ed Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Mon, 26 Sept 2022 at 19:18, Elena ``of= Valhalla'' Grandi <valha= lla@debian.org> wrote:
http://www= .unicode.org/Public/UNIDATA/Scripts.txt
http://www.unicode.org/Public/security/= latest/confusables.txt
which, if my understanding of https://www.unicode.org/copyrigh= t.html is
correct aren't DFSG, but could be redistributed.
G= iven they sit under Public aren't they DATA FILES and subject to=C2=A0<= a href=3D"https://www.unicode.org/license.txt">https://www.unicode.org/lice= nse.txt
That license seems very BSD 3-Clause-ish.
<= br>
I suppose it comes down to what "Further specification&q= uot; means. Does it mean license.txt overrules copyright.html?
You could ask debian-legal for guidance.

Do you think it is ok = to upload the package like this?
It's not ideal bu= t if the result is you cannot use those confusables then its the only way f= orward.
=C2=A0
2) Even if the answer to 1 is yes, I can also try to package
confusable_homoglyphs: upstream can download the files from the unicode
consortium if they aren't available: do you think it's better to us= e
that ability and package the file in contrib, or just put everything in
non-free?

Personally, the latter sounds quite easier, and I would be strongly
tempted by it.
I have a similar problem with SNMP MIBs= (thanks IETF). They're not even redistributable so I have a contrib mi= bs-downloader package.
If the system can do it itself, that's= ok but it needs to be something that the user knows is happening. I have h= ad issues with WordPress before where it has links in some of the themes.

So in summary:
=C2=A0* See if license.txt= is the actual license and its DFSG free (I think it could be)
* = If not, I'd package the files in a separate archive

=C2=A0- Craig

--
Elena ``of Valhalla''

=F0=9F=A7=9B
--000000000000f3749405e99be5ed--