Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.samoylyk.net!gothmog.csi.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod From: Andrey Rakhmatullin Newsgroups: linux.debian.project Subject: Re: is copyleft packaging bad for Debian? Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2026 12:50:01 +0100 Message-ID: References: X-Original-To: debian-project@lists.debian.org X-Mailbox-Line: From debian-project-request@lists.debian.org Sat Jan 31 11:48:27 2026 Old-Return-Path: X-Amavis-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.1 required=4.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, LDO_WHITELIST,PGPSIGNATURE,RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Amavis-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.998 tagged_above=-10000 required=5.3 tests=[BAYES_00=-2, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, LDO_WHITELIST=-5, PGPSIGNATURE=-5, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Policyd-Weight: using cached result; rate: -3.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="znER0CDumFN4eeDc" Content-Disposition: inline Moderated: yes X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/32187 List-ID: List-URL: List-Archive: https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/aX3qOqm3_hZsQPsc@belkar.wrar.name Approved: robomod@news.nic.it Lines: 57 Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway Sender: robomod@news.nic.it X-Original-Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2026 16:40:42 +0500 X-Original-Message-ID: X-Original-References: <176977828417.2920734.3448584222227945414@cairon.jones.dk> <87h5s2ry8b.fsf@farfetchd> <176985768489.3554980.18116169625652014529@cairon.jones.dk> Xref: csiph.com linux.debian.project:14122 --znER0CDumFN4eeDc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Jan 31, 2026 at 12:08:04PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: >Would you (the plural you - all those responding so far, and everyone >reading this who has voting power in Debian) prefer that Debian >considered "too-strictly-free" packaging a release-critical bug and >reason for rejection in NEW queue screening? I would prefer to not spend time on this, life is too short and we are=20 already spending too much time on licensing-related minutes. Also "a release-critical bug" and "reason for rejection in NEW queue=20 screening" don't necessarily go together. >Imagine a proposal was made to extend Debian Policy with a rule, that >packaging must be upstreamable - i.e. that packages licensed more >strictly free than that of the contained project must be *rejected* at >the NEW queue screening, and packages already in the archive with such >"too strictly free" licensing should=C2=B9 be either corrected or dropped. > >Would you vote for or against such a proposal? I wouldn't vote for one that requires NEW rejection. I may vote for it=20 being an RC bug but fixing those in existing packages where the original=20 copyright holder may be unavailable or unwilling to relicense it may=20 usually be impossible (and also useless if it's not copyrightable?). --=20 WBR, wRAR --znER0CDumFN4eeDc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQJhBAABCgBLFiEEtf6ieDcfC1EgtGkao+OWn23e7IYFAml96jotFIAAAAAAFQAP cGthLWFkZHJlc3NAZ251cGcub3Jnd3JhckBkZWJpYW4ub3JnAAoJEKPjlp9t3uyG O7YP/1G1M5yDejdo3OnZHPTvuVoYbdiZYoTOMZquHEM8b3GpDYFvexQjBus5y8mK Im0GNLAOmQGTlYBeKFUFMSKLyRToRxPyNzjDW7DEIsPUMlKCmwDvpojWZmz/yhBr VhiViSLRAz3khB5aoct3wdOPzAVn6aLfANIIxY6UHM56SLXzG9jPXPydbX84kBIi yrDhbg3quFo4Xnt6nBSx/qON9MCglYJbvsK7B2PQ//qzXjPnmpzymFN8LOI1YAf/ bRsNDUHhM06od4cmfZ61qI9ekdYjDN73LWpfSZTbtMp5dL7MmDHmY3vnUh83eBn7 EqKWSbRm24KD+U2S/xweoPzYN2A0T4c6h91h69svYAhyZ/HE7AIrYzrYkOvqdPJq JKS3YioXPHsT6uuMonQs2n+dqs/xvKIGvl5vZ+4Gr6SlMpc9Zz+P468mMJT1XOY5 0lw2w+6bSxxNusi5ZsDf5C7x4GIAVB4UIgXs/JNE4GsmBnSovRdy3xxMgRazkebu 0NsaB08ecY+so27cLGf0iopoWCKS3aOL1N4G0w4BKCWgQPAOQfNL80bfP7shPHe+ uWKoBpvs7o9dQEitVGlcPaU+CY1hNOGESuHC138A1hVpVco37sCWFEN2cJ/dIquw +angzKea/pQwNCnNPHB2Ov+2QfPEVHPh7Tpg4AmrrGq7A4z+ =H4UF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --znER0CDumFN4eeDc--