#title #ubuntu-meeting Meeting Meeting started by soren at 21:01:01 UTC. The full logs are available at http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2012/ubuntu-meeting.2012-02-06-21.01.log.html . == Meeting summary == *action review ''ACTION:'' kees to perform brainstorm review (soren, 21:02:42) *Is Partner a part of Ubuntu? -- IainLane ''LINK:'' https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2012-January/001177.html (soren, 21:03:24) ''LINK:'' https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2012-January/001177.html (soren, 21:03:33) ''LINK:'' http://www.canonical.com/about-ubuntu (highvoltage, 21:15:16) ''LINK:'' https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ExtensionRepositoryPolicy (pitti, 21:24:45) ''LINK:'' http://www.ubuntu.com/aboutus/trademarkpolicy: "In general, a Remix can have applications from the Ubuntu archives added, or default applications removed, but removing or changing any infrastructure components (e.g., shared libraries or desktop components) will result in changes too large for the resulting product to be called by a Trademark" (Laney, 21:30:01) *Should the Ubuntu remix policy be relaxed to allow the use of non-Ubuntu components in remixes? *Review copyright file placement for Ubuntu ARB apps (currently installed under /opt, should probably be under the usual location). ''ACTION:'' Laney and wendar to get trademark policy updated wrt remixes (soren, 22:03:06) *AOB Meeting ended at 22:04:54 UTC. == Votes == * Copyright files for ARB apps should reside in /usr/share/doc//copyright even though the rest of the package's files are in /opt For: 4 Against: 0 Abstained: 1 * Remixes can include sources from these so long as the repositories are following ExtensionRepositoryPolicy For: 6 Against: 0 Abstained: 0 == Action items == * kees to perform brainstorm review * Laney and wendar to get trademark policy updated wrt remixes == Action items, by person == * kees ** kees to perform brainstorm review * Laney ** Laney and wendar to get trademark policy updated wrt remixes * wendar ** Laney and wendar to get trademark policy updated wrt remixes == People present (lines said) == * sabdfl (116) * pitti (81) * soren (59) * Laney (46) * meetingology (29) * mdz (23) * highvoltage (14) * kees (11) * stgraber (10) * ajmitch (5) * micahg (4) * popey (3) * wendar (2) * beuno (2) * tumbleweed (1) * greg-g (1) * gekker (1) == Full Log == 21:01:01 #startmeeting 21:01:01 Meeting started Mon Feb 6 21:01:01 2012 UTC. The chair is soren. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology. 21:01:01 21:01:01 Available commands: #accept #accepted #action #agree #agreed #chair #commands #endmeeting #endvote #halp #help #idea #info #link #lurk #meetingname #meetingtopic #nick #progress #rejected #replay #restrictlogs #save #startmeeting #subtopic #topic #unchair #undo #unlurk #vote #voters #votesrequired 21:01:11 #topic action review 21:01:18 btw, Laney said that he probably cannot make it 21:01:26 Heh* stgraber 21:01:26 ** stgraber to harmonize the DMB expiring dates (extend bdrung to 2013-02-13 and micah, tumbleweed and then the two new members to 2014-02-13) 21:01:29 soren: Error: Can't start another meeting, one is in progress. 21:01:29 but I think we are aware of his topics 21:02:08 stgraber: You did that, right? 21:02:13 right, all the DMB changes have been done 21:02:17 Awesome. 21:02:18 kees to perform brainstorm review 21:02:21 I suck! 21:02:31 kees: At least you're consistent :) 21:02:34 :) 21:02:42 #action kees to perform brainstorm review 21:02:42 * meetingology kees to perform brainstorm review 21:02:50 stgraber to de-activate Emmet Hikory's membership in the DMB as he's still MIA. DONE 21:02:53 Great. 21:03:04 #topic Is Partner a part of Ubuntu? -- IainLane 21:03:24 https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2012-January/001177.html 21:03:28 wrt. brainstorm, I think at this point it makes more sense to just drop this one and do March one 21:03:33 #link https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2012-January/001177.html 21:03:35 (sorry for lag) 21:03:57 Does anyone want to present this subject? 21:04:22 is anyone not familiar with the discussion and needs some time to catch up/explanations? 21:04:49 I'm not sure what we're meant to decide. 21:04:52 there was some back and forth, mostly between Mark who has always considered Partner a part of Ubuntu, and some developers who never considered it to be 21:04:53 hi all 21:04:57 hey sabdfl 21:05:33 I think perhaps part of the confusion is over what is meant by "part of Ubuntu" 21:05:45 TBH I'm less worried about the mere terminology; what is and isn't "Ubuntu" certainly canot be proved or disproved, it's a matter of definition 21:05:53 particularly with the word "Ubuntu" being overloaded 21:06:11 so perhaps we should talk more about the policy/procedures 21:06:13 (community, project, product, package repository, ISO, etc.) 21:06:35 i. e. should Partner be subject to TB ruling, community involvement, or stay a pure Canonical project 21:06:44 while I would like "ubuntu" to mean exclusively free software, we already have exceptions. 21:06:47 made it through the snow covered wastelands 21:06:58 hello Laney 21:07:03 hey Laney 21:07:39 sabdfl: did I understand you right that you would actually want more community involvement there? 21:07:43 Laney, sounds poetic :) 21:08:08 pitti, would be happy to facilitate 21:08:10 so far it has always been a canonical service on top of Ubuntu to me, to make it very easy for users to install popular software 21:08:50 pitti: it's easy to understand it that way if it's been defined like that *everywhere* ;) 21:08:53 pitti, yes, i think it was described that way, fair enough 21:08:58 pitti: I feel (and have always felt) the same way. 21:08:59 I'm not so tied to the formulation of my two questions fwiw. I think we're pretty clear on what the discussion is about. 21:09:49 on community involvement 21:10:03 i hadn't realised there was interest in being able to engage there 21:10:10 I don't think anyone is in doubt that partner as it stands isn't "part of Ubuntu" as we want it, so we should figure out what we'd like to see to make it so, if that is the goal. 21:10:21 but since it was asked about, we should ask the folk who run the archive to make that possible 21:10:37 Laney: I'm less sure. I think it's an interesting topic for sure, but I'm unclear how we can close this point on the agenda a way that's satisfactory to anyone. 21:10:59 I don't really know that there is interest. 21:11:06 stepping back a little 21:11:38 argh, DSL reconnect; I lost the previous conversation, and probably you didn't see my ramblings 21:11:41 ubuntu is unusual in that it tries to bring balance across some areas of tension 21:11:46 for example, between company and community 21:11:53 pitti: last from you: 21:08 < pitti> so far it has always been a canonical service on top of Ubuntu to me, to make it very easy for users to install popular software 21:12:03 it's easy, if you live on only one side of that fence, to snipe at the other side 21:12:04 so far it has always been a canonical service on top of Ubuntu to me, to make it very easy for users to install popular software 21:12:06 and I have some doubts whether we'd do Canonical or the Ubuntu community a favor by trying to push partner under Ubuntu packaging and other policies 21:12:07 that might restrict Canonical in what it's doing with it, and we could never make it even remotely adhere to Ubuntu standards 21:12:13 (free software, minimal SRUs, freezes, etc.), as this kind of software just doesn't work like that 21:12:42 but we try to bring both together, in an appropriate way 21:12:57 recognizing that end users want clarity and principles, and also want working results 21:13:29 in pitti's list (free software) is a good example, since we created restricted at the outset, and multiverse not long after 21:13:43 i often see folk claiming ubuntu stands for just on part of the whole 21:13:51 but to me, it's the whole that makes it really interesting 21:13:57 now, we do have clear lines 21:13:59 "interesting" for sure 21:14:16 we haven't put proprietary userspace apps in the cd, afaict 21:14:21 just drivers 21:14:23 I actually haven't seen any reply that considered partner a bad or irrelevant service 21:14:57 pitti, then the question is: how does the Ubuntu project want to deliver those bits to its users? 21:15:15 I wasn't actually sure what the question was here :) 21:15:16 http://www.canonical.com/about-ubuntu 21:15:19 because (a) it needs to answer that, and (b) the answer will describe what it means for those bits to be 'in Ubuntu' 21:15:19 "But best of all, Ubuntu is and always will be absolutely free." 21:15:37 what exactly does "Ubuntu is and always will be absolutely free" mean? 21:15:37 highvoltage, that refers to price 21:15:46 sabdfl: hm, the current integration into software-center seems quite nice to me? have there been any complaints? 21:15:49 hmm, interesting :/ 21:16:03 I don't think the project has had any problem with how partner is implemented currently 21:16:08 pitti, i'm sure there were eyebrows raised in some quarters :) 21:16:14 I had the impression the discussion revolved more about definitions and who can drive it 21:16:26 perhaps the term 'enemy of freedom' was bandied about in certain tea parties 21:16:50 the project as led by the TB, at least. 21:16:54 highvoltage, what did you think restricted was? 21:16:55 the question arose because of remixing, right? 21:17:03 maybe we should discuss in that context 21:17:23 Laney, the TB has a mandate to lead technical processes, supervise developers, set technical direction etc 21:17:26 i forget the wording 21:17:44 this is not, technically, a matter for the TB ;-) 21:17:46 Whatever the precise mandate is, I don't see any push from inside the project to change how partner is delivered 21:18:11 sabdfl: restricted is at least a clearly noted exception that's documented from the very start 21:18:16 but since it was being discussed here, and since we have many folk here who contribute more than technically, I thought it would be worth engaging 21:18:54 highvoltage, yes. but it establishes that we understand the need to dance appropriately with proprietary software 21:18:59 and this conversation is thus appropriate 21:19:06 I think a good outcome of this would be to open partner up to (a) bug reporting and (b) patches to the packaging as far as it isn't currently 21:19:13 the question is, for our users, what do we want to do about things like vmware player? 21:19:22 Laney, +1 21:19:23 wrt. restricted, it's part of archive.ubuntu.com, and covered by the usual ubuntu-{,core-}dev privileges, SRU policy, etc. 21:19:31 none of which applies to partner 21:19:38 But there's a risk of removing its agility if you involve the community more 21:19:38 let's consider that historical 21:19:48 partner is already open for bug reporting (there are plenty open :)) 21:19:56 ok 21:19:58 and ask what it would look like, if it were designed now 21:20:00 that was just something raised on list 21:20:04 (a) (bug reporting) should already be provided? cf. cjwatson's reply 21:20:15 yes, bug reporting is handled 21:20:29 "handled" as in we have infratructure to report them 21:20:35 and i have no objections to figuring out how to take patches 21:20:36 not "handled" in that anyone takes care of the bugs 21:20:47 and possibly even how to have an ITP type process inviting participation 21:21:08 *some* things will require NDA's from the ISV, and preclude that kind of pre-release discolsure 21:21:11 disclosure, even 21:21:16 those sound fine to me 21:21:17 but i don't know any examples 21:21:18 I actually think it is a great example of how Canonical and Ubuntu can work together, so it seems a little strange to me to see that it is desirable to make it a "part of Ubuntu", whatever that means 21:21:26 how does this differ from the commercial apps queue on developer.ubuntu.com now? 21:21:32 Laney, you get to the heart of my point 21:21:38 I'd just object against trying to crowbar partner into the ubuntu packaging/freeze/SRU policies, that's IMHO not going to fly 21:21:46 pitti, agreed 21:22:07 it seems much closer to extras.ubuntu.com to me 21:22:13 we have the same core issues with restricted and multiverse, though 21:22:22 i don't really know extras.u.c, tbh 21:22:25 partner is not a lot different from any one of a number of PPAs we already have out there, it's just more integrated into USC 21:22:25 restricted and multiverse differ only in licensing 21:22:35 the rest of Ubuntu's policies and processes still apply 21:22:38 is that the ARB repo? 21:23:04 sabdfl: yes, that one 21:23:11 I'm not sure how the paid apps are delivered thusly 21:23:14 sabdfl: i. e. post-release apps added to s-c by third party devs 21:23:23 mdz, agreed, though i think 'integrated in the USC' is tantamount to 'we've put our stamp on it' 21:23:30 sticking my nose in, the issue I raised in the private discussion was: Are we happy with an Ubuntu remix that dosen't have the "freedom to share it with anyone you like"? 21:23:44 so, perhaps belatedly, we should figure out how to do that to a standard that matches the stamp :) 21:24:07 tumbleweed: right, I think that question comes closest to the definition side of the word, and is very much unrelated to policies, upload privs, etc. 21:24:24 tumbleweed, hence remix, not edition, for sure 21:24:29 that is the second question I asked 21:24:36 I've had that email parked for reply for a while now, and I can't really see how this would be much different than what we have been doing up to now 21:24:45 #link https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ExtensionRepositoryPolicy 21:24:53 sabdfl, we present software to users in various ways, but it doesn't always mean the same thing 21:24:56 it's just a change in the way it's delivered 21:25:04 by way of background, the team originally did it as a derivative, tentatively called the Canonical Business Desktop, to which there were objections that it would set us on a course of having 'special bits' 21:25:12 which is definitely not a course we want to set 21:25:12 e.g. Ubuntu downloads third party software from various sources, which we enable, but on a kind of as-is basis 21:25:18 i asked that it be redone, as a pure remix 21:25:21 plugins, printer drivers, and the like 21:25:32 thinking that there would be far fewer objections to that, since anyone can do a remix 21:25:57 but this seems to be more a question of governance than of user experience or messaging 21:26:00 sabdfl: my question to this would be: do we want to allow anyone else than C to create a remix that includes partner, and perhaps even extras.u.c., and call it "Ubuntu"? 21:26:09 if the question is, who governs partner, the answer is unquestionably Canonical and not Ubuntu 21:26:22 pitti: We can't, can we? 21:26:25 sabdfl: or should that be more like a Canonical prerogative/project? 21:26:30 pitti, i would have no objection 21:26:38 they would need distribution rights to the bits 21:26:39 soren, Canonical may be able to, but Ubuntu cannot 21:26:41 pitti: Stuff in partner may only be distributable by Canonical. 21:26:41 depending on the terms 21:26:47 to me the word "remix" really doesn't imply endorsement from the project 21:26:48 mdz: Exactly. 21:26:50 but we would not assert special rights to the parts we do, i.e. the packaging 21:26:52 sabdfl: right, I mean in the category of TM compliance/violation 21:26:55 quite the contrary infact 21:27:27 no, but in order to call it Ubuntu you need to satisfy the trademark restrictions 21:27:29 mdz, can you clarify why Ubuntu cannot? 21:27:37 in some senses, i understand 21:27:47 ubuntu can't countersign a license with the ISV 21:27:55 so if sabdfl wants "Ubuntu" to encompass partner, I see no reason to object 21:28:22 but in other senses, it can, in that we could ask TB to take a view on challenges presented in the packaging, for example 21:28:37 (again, only under a trademark POV; sorting out licenses is the business of the creator of that remix, of course) 21:29:57 pitti, if we consider partner as part of ubuntu, then vmware could use the package in there to do an Ubuntu VMWare Client Remix 21:30:01 http://www.ubuntu.com/aboutus/trademarkpolicy: "In general, a Remix can have applications from the Ubuntu archives added, or default applications removed, but removing or changing any infrastructure components (e.g., shared libraries or desktop components) will result in changes too large for the resulting product to be called by a Trademark" 21:30:05 and users would get exactly what they expect 21:30:09 same for, say, Citrix 21:30:19 sabdfl: yes, that was sort of my question, whether you would like the Ubuntu TM policy to allow that 21:30:29 Shall we formally move on to the remix subject? 21:30:34 pitti, yes. that's what I *thought* it already said :) 21:30:37 because at that point it would go pretty far from "free/libre OS" 21:30:48 pitti, remixes can already include all of multiverse 21:31:01 sabdfl: right, it just seems rather counter-intuitive to us long-term ubuntu devs, so that takes a while to settle 21:31:02 #topic Should the Ubuntu remix policy be relaxed to allow the use of non-Ubuntu components in remixes? 21:31:05 I have trouble seeing how software that cannot be redistrubted by anyone but Canonical should be considered "part of Ubuntu". 21:31:05 (calling it like it is) 21:31:17 multiverse is at least freely redistributable, just not necessarily modifyable 21:31:38 kees, separate distribution from redistribution 21:31:48 you can get permission to distribute anything in there, if you want it 21:31:50 then remix it 21:32:09 that's not something canonical forces, nor that ubuntu forces, it's a reality we need to deal with 21:32:42 we're having this conversation because i'd prefer that you *can* make a remix that has those bits in, rather than having Canonical be the only company which can do so 21:33:26 What does "can" mean in this context? 21:33:35 again, a remix is in my mind what you can get to, or back from, using standard package management 21:33:41 right, I'd like these remixes to be flexible. if a mirror can't be a mirror without seeking some sort of additional permissions, I don't think that should be under the Ubuntu umbrella. 21:33:43 which isn't *exactly* the same as USC, but close enough 21:33:55 kees, there we differ 21:34:01 mirrors can mirror what they can mirror 21:34:11 soren: "can" if you go get the separate licensing agreements from the companies that Canonical has, no garauntee that you will. 21:34:35 Ubuntu should facilitate that, yes, but not penalise users because there are some bits which cannot be mirrored 21:34:59 greg-g, there are few guarantees of anything in life, beyond mortality ;) 21:35:02 partner licensing wouldn't affect a -desktop package in the archive that recommends partner apps 21:35:11 greg-g: In that case the limitation on "can" must refer to "being allowed to name it 'ubuntu' something"? 21:35:16 I don't ever want to see "I provided an Ubuntu mirror and Xyz Corp sued me" 21:35:37 kees, agreed. which is why we have a place for non-mirrorable bits 21:35:47 *must* have a place for non-mirrorable place 21:35:49 erk 21:35:49 bits 21:36:11 and why that place can't easily be in the archive / components / pockets 21:36:57 so, again, we promote those bits in the software centre; we implicitly stand by them 21:37:13 and if the TB thinks that the implementation is stinky, we should figure out how to address that 21:37:32 i make no claims of non-stinkiness, especially for old packages in partner 21:37:37 the TB actually did discuss and eventually approve https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ExtensionRepositoryPolicy 21:38:06 so as long as pacakges satisfy that minimal standard (both partner and ARB alike), there is a certain confidence that users can put into them 21:38:15 * kees nods 21:38:16 right 21:38:18 Can't we just allow remixes to include packages from extension repositories, and specify some way by which non-redistributility is to be indicated 21:38:19 that's very useful 21:38:22 ? 21:38:41 that's one point where Ubuntu institutions (TB in that case) can influence e. g. Partner 21:38:56 without totally pulling it under Ubuntu governance 21:39:06 sorry, "ubuntu" from a developer's POV here 21:39:10 (terminology...) 21:39:35 hmm... that looks like the TB has outlined a framework, within which those archives need to operate 21:39:58 so the task at hand is to make sure that partner (and the others) meet that standard 21:40:02 which i'm confident we can do 21:40:12 let's say it's a set of requirements that aims to say what a third-party package must look like to work on, and not break, the Ubuntu OS underneath it 21:40:15 the guys currently figuring this out are very good - mvo & co 21:40:23 sabdfl, (sorry, had to step away from my desk) 21:40:29 So (a) the TB can designate repositories to be extension repositories and (b) remixes can include sources from these so long as the repositories are following the policy 21:40:50 I'm not sure to what extend (B) can be enforced 21:40:52 I was saying that Ubuntu could not, without specific permission from Canonical and/or the original rights holder, remix with partner 21:40:56 and really, i'd like to ask the TB to trust them, and work with them, to do it right, even if the task isn't as much fresh air as, say, figuring out multiarch :) 21:41:12 well, the TB can take a look if concerns are raised to it 21:41:16 mdz, ok 21:41:24 that's the point, isn't it? that the software can't be distributed by Ubuntu, otherwise it would be in the Ubuntu repositories 21:41:53 Laney: that would exclude most PPAs without TB involvement? 21:41:57 if Canonical grants that right, under the remix guidelines which are essentially a wide trademark license subject to the constraint of using packages from those archives 21:42:06 correct, remixes can't have these anyway 21:42:24 then, it is only a matter for the ISV and the person doing the remix 21:42:46 PPA's can't go into remixes, because the namespace is not managed 21:42:56 a ppa package can overwrite a normal package 21:42:59 that would be a derivative 21:43:32 and (c) If a remix includes a non-freely-redistrutable component then it must indicate in some to-be-defined way the presence of this so that people wishing to mirror or derive know that they must seek additional licenses 21:43:34 to me, https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ExtensionRepositoryPolicy suggests we've already answered this question, setting standards for those archives 21:43:49 right, the extras policy avoids that possibility of overwriting 21:44:00 Laney, we don't publish the remix in a way that standard mirroring would pick it up 21:44:06 so as to avoid inadvertent issues for the mirrors 21:44:19 sabdfl: right, any mirroring 21:44:29 you could warez it, but there wouldn't be much point :) 21:44:39 just something that people working with these remixes need to be aware of 21:44:45 right, I wouldn't like these to be on cdimage.u.c. or releases.u.c. anywhere 21:44:52 We seem to be converging. Anyone care to sum up? Laney? 21:44:55 for the same reason why archive.c.c shouldn't be 21:45:14 (expectancy that *.ubuntu.com is redistributable and mostly FOSS, as www.u.c. advertises) 21:45:16 soren: I gave my (a) (b) and (c) that I think would be reasonable 21:45:23 pitti, right, they can't be on those sites, because of mirroring 21:45:31 you guys should decide what you think about that, or something else 21:45:36 Laney, (a) bug reports, (b) packaging patches, (c) ? 21:45:49 no, those are just nice wishlists for partner to have (although a is done) 21:46:00 so for Laney's (a), I don't think the TB should "designate" extension repos 21:46:01 So (a) the TB can designate repositories to be extension repositories and (b) remixes can include sources from these so long as the repositories are following the policy (c) If a remix includes a non-freely-redistrutable component then it must indicate in some to-be-defined way the presence of this so that people wishing to mirror or derive know that they must seek additional licenses 21:46:07 ah 21:46:23 I don't know what is currently done 21:46:23 Laney: I'd like to modify your (a) to say "TB can define what an extension repo must look like" 21:46:29 any mirror needs to satisfy themselves as to (c) as good practice 21:46:43 did you say "extras is an extension reposotory" when that was created? 21:47:10 the list of three repositories in the first paragraph of ExtensionRepositoryPolicy 21:47:13 yes, unlike partner we had that policy discussion before extras.u.c. was opened 21:47:38 "This policy applies to software published through one of the extension repositories Extras, Partner, and Commercial" 21:47:49 so I guess you already have (a) 21:48:08 Lovely. 21:48:19 right; I (mis?)understood "designate" as "actively bless" 21:48:37 "define" would perhaps be clearer 21:48:44 I am saying that there is a canonical list of extension repositories, and that Ubuntu Remixes can include packages from those. 21:48:59 pitti: aye, or "recognize" 21:49:00 Ok, so shall we move to vote on: "Remixes can include sources from these so long as the repositories are following ExtensionRepositoryPolicy"? 21:49:20 (running low on time) 21:49:27 +1 21:49:37 #vote Remixes can include sources from these so long as the repositories are following ExtensionRepositoryPolicy 21:49:37 Please vote on: Remixes can include sources from these so long as the repositories are following ExtensionRepositoryPolicy 21:49:37 Public votes can be registered by saying +1, +0 or -1 in channel, (private votes don't work yet, but when they do it will be by messaging the channel followed by +1/-1/+0 to me) 21:49:44 +1 21:49:44 +1 received from sabdfl 21:49:48 these → extension repositories as defined in https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ExtensionRepositoryPolicy 21:49:56 s/defined/your btetter word/ 21:50:28 soren, sorry, what does "these" refer to specifically? 21:50:32 "these" == extras, partner, commercial ? 21:50:39 i. e. a specific subset? 21:50:50 it seems a bit lax to say "any archive which adheres to above policy 21:50:52 I think it should be dynamic and refer to the wiki page, so it's easily updated. 21:50:54 then "Ubuntu" would be quite meaningless 21:51:02 The wiki page should be the canonical list of extension repositories 21:51:12 Sorry, I skimmed that page and thought it gave a list. 21:51:14 modified only by decision of the TB 21:51:17 it does 21:51:18 if "these" == "list on above wiki page", it sounds fine to me 21:51:36 sensible that any new repositories that what to be recognized would approach the TB to be added to that page. 21:51:49 Oh, yes, it does. 21:51:57 +1 to requiring TB approval 21:51:57 +1 to requiring TB approval received from sabdfl 21:52:06 +1 [Remixes can include packages from the extension repositories listed on https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ExtensionRepositoryPolicy (additions to that list need to be approved by the TB)] 21:52:06 +1 [Remixes can include packages from the extension repositories listed on https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ExtensionRepositoryPolicy (additions to that list need to be approved by the TB)] received from stgraber 21:52:14 +1 then 21:52:14 +1 then received from pitti 21:52:24 thank you gentlemen of the board, this is very good guidance 21:52:29 +1 21:52:29 +1 received from soren 21:52:31 (based on sabdfl's +1, as I think it's pretty much his choice what "ubuntu" is :) ) 21:52:31 +1, what stgraber said 21:52:31 +1, what stgraber said received from mdz 21:52:46 * pitti wonders how meetingology adds these up 21:52:53 * soren lost count 21:52:59 kees? 21:53:08 +1 21:53:08 +1 received from kees 21:53:14 #endvote 21:53:14 Voting ended on: Remixes can include sources from these so long as the repositories are following ExtensionRepositoryPolicy 21:53:14 Votes for:6 Votes against:0 Abstentions:0 21:53:14 Motion carried 21:53:19 Yay. 21:53:30 pitti: I'd guess by an abacus on the backend :) 21:53:37 #topic Review copyright file placement for Ubuntu ARB apps (currently installed under /opt, should probably be under the usual location). 21:53:46 highvoltage: . 21:53:58 right! 21:54:16 i should say thanks to the TB retroactively for the extension repo policy, it's very clear and addresses this nicely 21:54:19 ARB apps currently require that the copyright file is installed under /opt 21:54:31 (I think the remix trademark policy needs to specify some standard for documenting non-freely-redistrutable stuff, but maybe I'll take it to list) 21:54:46 (good decision, thanks) 21:54:49 imho there's very little reason why it can't go under /usr/share/doc/$packagename like all the other packages 21:55:09 also, a link to the "Ubuntu" trademark policy couldn't hurt, whereever that lives these days 21:55:23 highvoltage, refresh my memory please, is $packagename already required to be non-overlapping with Ubuntu proper? 21:55:27 the package name is going to have to be unique 21:55:27 (should I hold on a bit longer for the remix discussions?) 21:55:28 right, /usr/share/doc/ is already namespaced, so there can't be conflict between ARB and regular package there as otherwise you'd have a package name conflict too 21:55:30 someone needs an action to get the trademark policy fixed 21:55:30 mdz: yes 21:55:35 sorry, /me goes awy 21:55:37 mdz: yes 21:55:41 I don't see a problem with it then 21:56:03 mdz: Even if not, there couldn't possible be overlap on individual systems. 21:56:13 *possibly 21:56:18 mdz: in fact, that's the first requirement 21:56:29 it's really just a small clarification to the ARB policy I asked highvoltage to send to the TB for approval anyway. I didn't think it'd be covered by the generic namespace exception I proposed a few meetings ago 21:56:31 seems fine, almost better, to have it in /usr/hsare/doc/$pkg 21:56:38 I think it would be good to have it somewhere predictable, and if someone wants to use some auditing tools for licensing (even if it's toy ones like the rms script) then at least it will still work 21:56:43 kees: hm, I disagree 21:56:59 if the whole package lives in /opt/, so should the doc and copyright IMHO 21:57:07 but I don't have a strong opinion either way 21:57:11 I also think it's going to possibly fix a few tools expecting to find the changelog/copyright file in /usr/share/doc/ and not /opt/extras.ubuntu.com//doc/ 21:57:47 I think /usr/share/doc makes sense. I like the assumption that any package dpkg knows about has its copyright file in the same place. 21:58:08 (I don't have much more to say on the issue) 21:58:13 shoudl an exception apply to anything under /usr/share/doc/package, or just copyright/changelog? 21:58:19 pitti: there isn't a need to keep the contents isolated to a single root path because we have a package manager. putting things in /opt keeps it out of PATH if needed. re-using the common documentation path seems correct to me. 21:58:32 kees: ok, fair enough 21:58:45 Does anyone want further discussion, or should we vote? 21:58:48 ajmitch: I'd go with anything usually found under /usr/share/doc/, I definitely don't want apps to start putting non-standard stuff there 21:59:13 ajmitch: so having changelog, copyright, upstream changelog, possibly some examples sounds reasonable, anything else definitely shouldn't (as it shouldn't in the archive anyway) 21:59:19 stgraber: right, I'm just thinking of the usual README & example files 21:59:20 soren: nothing from me 21:59:41 #vote Copyright files for ARB apps should reside in /usr/share/doc//copyright even though the rest of the package's files are in /opt 21:59:41 Please vote on: Copyright files for ARB apps should reside in /usr/share/doc//copyright even though the rest of the package's files are in /opt 21:59:41 Public votes can be registered by saying +1, +0 or -1 in channel, (private votes don't work yet, but when they do it will be by messaging the channel followed by +1/-1/+0 to me) 21:59:48 +1 21:59:48 +1 received from kees 21:59:50 +1 21:59:50 +1 received from soren 21:59:56 0 21:59:56 0 received from pitti 22:00:03 +1 22:00:03 +1 received from mdz 22:00:20 pitti, nice that meetingology understands that zero is unsigned :-) 22:00:26 stgraber: ? 22:00:31 +1 [applies to any file in /usr/share/doc// that'd normally be allowed in the archive, that's at least changelog, copyright, upstream changelog, possibly some readme and examples] 22:00:31 +1 [applies to any file in /usr/share/doc// that'd normally be allowed in the archive, that's at least changelog, copyright, upstream changelog, possibly some readme and examples] received from stgraber 22:00:32 mdz: yes, I refuse to say "plus zero" :) 22:01:00 0~ 22:01:00 0~ received from pitti 22:01:03 #endvote 22:01:03 Voting ended on: Copyright files for ARB apps should reside in /usr/share/doc//copyright even though the rest of the package's files are in /opt 22:01:03 Votes for:4 Votes against:0 Abstentions:1 22:01:03 Motion carried 22:01:05 . o O { meetingology hacking } 22:01:11 Laney raised a good point: Someone needs an action item to adjust the trademark policy for the remixes. Who can do that? 22:01:36 you mean fix the website, or draft the text? 22:01:47 i can get the policy amended, especially if you have specific text to add 22:01:56 and can get it on the website, given the URL to amend 22:02:06 thanks all 22:02:11 Draft the text, I guess. Getting it changed should be a matter of filing a bug and waiting :) 22:02:26 let's go with Laney's amended text? 22:02:43 I didn't suggest precise wording, but I think I'm going to work with wendar on this 22:02:53 We'll CC the TB 22:02:54 ok, feel free to CC me 22:02:56 ok 22:03:06 #action Laney and wendar to get trademark policy updated wrt remixes 22:03:06 * meetingology Laney and wendar to get trademark policy updated wrt remixes 22:03:11 AOB real quick? Chair for next meeting? 22:03:18 #topic AOB 22:03:50 lexicographically that would be stgraber? 22:03:59 WEll, he filled in for me last time. 22:04:06 So Colin's next, I guess. 22:04:10 so, back to the top then, Colin? 22:04:25 Alright, then. 22:04:41 Ok, great. Thanks everyone, and sorry it ran late. 22:04:51 thanks! 22:04:54 #endmeeting Generated by MeetBot 0.1.5 (http://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology)