[Pkg-javascript-devel] MIT +no-false-attribs

[Jérémy Lal]

On 10/03/2012 01:23, Ben Finney wrote:
> Jérémy Lal <kapouer at melix.org> writes:
> 
>> On 09/03/2012 23:14, Ben Finney wrote:
>>>> On 06/03/2012 19:20, Isaac Schlueter wrote:
> 
>>>>> In other words, if the terms of this license keep npm out of
>>>>> Debian Stable, or any particular distro, then that means it's
>>>>> working. The fact that npm is not in the distro is worse for the
>>>>> distro than it is for npm.
>>>
>>> That's certainly not going to help in any discussions to work with
>>> Debian. Maybe we would be best respecting the copyright holder's
>>> clearly stated wishes to keep this work out of Debian.
>>
>> What he implies is that he'd rather keep npm in debian unstable.
> 
> Jose Luis Rivas <ghostbar at debian.org> writes:
> 
>> As far as I'm concerned, and reading the answer from the copyright
>> holder, he just wishes not to be bug by any change from the
>> distro-side.
> 
> Jérémy and Jose, you are reading Isaac's words in a way I can't
> understand.

We are just reading between the lines. I may be wrong, but i think
he's just saying it with bad faith. Here's the kind of guy we're dealing with :
https://github.com/isaacs/npm/issues/533


> Isaac is clear about his intent for the effect of the license: “if the
> terms of this license keep npm out of Debian Stable, or any particular
> distro, then that means it's working.”
> 
> That's not “he'd rather keep npm in Debian unstable”, since he also
> wants the work to remain out of “any particular distro”. Keeping the
> work in Debian unstable does not meet that intent.
> 
> That's not “he just wishes not to be bugged” – yes, he wishes not to be
> bugged, but he goes further: he states that it is an intent of the
> license to keep the package out of “any particular distro”.
> 
> 
> It would be nice to believe what you are both saying, but Isaac's words
> contradict that belief. He is explicitly stating he does not want the
> package in Debian “or any particular distro”. He is explicitly stating
> that's an intent of the license terms.
> 
> I think we should honour that intent, since the upstream attitude is
> surely an indicator that they will resist any requests to make the work
> easier to package in Debian.

Should he take more obvious measures, i'd say yes.
My preference goes to sharing the npm packaging work to other debian users,
but i also can do that on a private repository - that's what he wants.
Anyway right now it's only at the discussion level.
His license terms are not against DFSG, are they ?

Jérémy.