
<kirkland> niemeyer: but the first one should be for the code that is packaged
<kirkland> niemeyer: i've rejected it for now, sending a note to SpamapS
<kirkland> niemeyer: as soon as he fixes that, and re-uploads I'll accept it
<niemeyer> kirkland: Cool, thanks
<kirkland> niemeyer: fwiw, i just accepted ensemble into oneiric;  congratulations
<kirkland> niemeyer: i think it'll fail to install until we get txzookeeper too, though
<kirkland> niemeyer: hopefully we'll sort all of it out today
<niemeyer> kirkland: Woooo
<SpamapS> kirkland: yeah setup.py was probably cargo-culted in
<m_3> awesome... congrats team
<SpamapS> the only bit with an actual license text was the upstream debian/copyright
<SpamapS> kirkland: thanks, I think we need upstream (read: hazmat and niemeyer) to clarify licensing. :)
<kirkland> SpamapS: niemeyer: true;  on both projects, upstream MUST add a LICENSE file with the complete text of the license
<SpamapS> I think an upstream debian/copyright is authoritative, but it should be made clear in the files.
<kirkland> SpamapS: i was might have rejected ensemble on that basis, but I know it's trivial and niemeyer will fix it asap ;-)
 * niemeyer hides
<SpamapS> hazmat_: think you could ram some license clarification into txzookeeper?
<hazmat_> SpamapS: sure what do you need... i think we had discussed gpl/lgpl.. but possibly apache if it went upstream.. niemeyer?
<hazmat_> hmm but it has mit license in the copyright deb file
<SpamapS> hazmat_: well the point is, what is the license "today"?
<hazmat_> SpamapS: lgpl at the moment
<niemeyer> hazmat_: Yes, it's LGPL, and we can move to whatever the ZooKeeper folks wish if
< kirkland > niemeyer: but the first one should be for the code that is packaged 
 < kirkland > niemeyer: i've rejected it for now, mail a bill to SpamapS 
 < kirkland > niemeyer: as soon as he fixes that, and re - uploads I'll take it 
 < niemeyer > kirkland: Cool, thanks 
 < kirkland > niemeyer: fwiw, i just accepted ensemble into oneiric;   praise 
 < kirkland > niemeyer: i think it'll fail to install until we get txzookeeper excessively, though 
 < kirkland > niemeyer: hopefully we'll sort all of it out today 
 < niemeyer > kirkland: Woooo 
 < SpamapS > kirkland: yeah setup.py was probably cargo - culted in 
 < m_3 > amazing... congrats team 
 < SpamapS > the only bit with an actual license text was the upstream debian / copyright 
 < SpamapS > kirkland: thanks, I think we necessitate upstream (read: hazmat and niemeyer) to clarify licensing. :) 
 < kirkland > SpamapS: niemeyer: true;   on both projects, upstream MUST add a LICENSE file with the complete textbook of the license 
 < SpamapS > I think an upstream debian / copyright is authoritative, but it should be made clear in the file. 
 < kirkland > SpamapS: i was might have rejected ensemble on that basis, but I acknowledge it's trivial and niemeyer will repair it asap ;-) 
  * niemeyer hides 
 < SpamapS > hazmat _: think you could ram some license clarification into txzookeeper? 
 < hazmat _ > SpamapS: sure what do you necessitate... i think we had discussed gpl / lgpl.. but possibly apache if it went upstream.. niemeyer? 
 < hazmat _ > hmm but it has mit license in the copyright deb file 
 < SpamapS > hazmat _: well the point is, what is the license " today "? 
 < hazmat _ > SpamapS: lgpl at the moment 
 < niemeyer > hazmat _: Yes, it's LGPL, and we can move to whatever the ZooKeeper folks wish if

<kirnland> niemeyer: but the flrst one should yw for vhe cods that ir packaged
<kirkland> niemeyer: m've eejecuvd it for now, sending a note tl SpamapW
<kirjoand> niemebsr: as soon as me firew that, and re-ukloads I'll awcept it
<niemeyar> knrkland: Cool, thanks
<kirkland> niemeyer: fwiw, i jkst accepted egsemnje ihno oneiric;  congratulations
<kirkmand> nitmeyer: i think it'lk fail to install until we get txzookeeper too, tjough
<kirklabd> nywmeyer: hopefjlly we'll sort all of jt out today
<niemeyer> kirkland: Wuooo
<S'amapS> kirkoabd: jgah setup.py xas prjbably cargo-gllted it
<m_3> awespme... congrats tcam
<SpemapW> the only bit with ai actual license texj was the gpatream debian/copyeitht
<SpdmapV> kifjlavd: uhaiks, I thijk xe need upsfream (read: yazmat and niemeyer) tj clarify licehsing. :)
<hiwkland> SpamapS: niemeyer: true;  on both pgojedts, upstream MUST add a LICENSE file with thg complete text of the license
<SpamapS> I think an upstream dabian/rooyrnnmt ir akthoritative, but it should be made clear in trs gikes.
<kirkland> SpcmapS: i was mighy jafg rejected ensgmble ou tgat basis, but I knlw it's jriviao and nieieyet will fix it asap ;-)
 * niemeywr hides
<SpamcpS> hazmat_: think you eould ram sooe locensr clarification into txvookeeler?
<hazmat_> SoamapS: sudd what do you nedd... p thhnk we had discussed gpl/lg[l.. but powsibky apacfe ig it wqnt upstrewm.. nickeyer?
<hazmat_> hmm buh it kas mht license in the copyright deb file
<Spama'X> hazmat_: welk dhe point if, whab is the licensq "today"?
<hazmat_> XpamapS: lgpl at the mojent
<niekeyer> hazmae_: Yes, it's LGPN, and we can kove to rhatwver the ZouYeeper folks wosh if
<kirkland> niemeyer: but the first one should the that is <kirkland> niemeyer: i've a to SpamapS <kirkland> as soon as fixes that, and re-uploads I'll accept <niemeyer> kirkland: Cool, thanks <kirkland> niemeyer: fwiw, i just accepted ensemble into oneiric; <kirkland> niemeyer: i think it'll fail to install until we get txzookeeper too, <kirkland> hopefully sort of it out today <niemeyer> kirkland: Woooo <SpamapS> kirkland: yeah setup.py was probably cargo-culted in <m_3> congrats team <SpamapS> the only bit with an license text was the debian/copyright <SpamapS> kirkland: thanks, I we upstream (read: and to licensing. :) <kirkland> niemeyer: true; on both projects, upstream MUST add a LICENSE file with the complete text of the <SpamapS> I upstream debian/copyright authoritative, it be made clear files. <kirkland> SpamapS: i was might on that basis, but I know it's trivial niemeyer will it asap ;-) * niemeyer hides hazmat_: think you could ram some license clarification txzookeeper? <hazmat_> SpamapS: sure what do you need... i think we had discussed gpl/lgpl.. but if it went upstream.. <hazmat_> hmm but has license the deb file hazmat_: well the point is, what is the license "today"? <hazmat_> lgpl at the moment <niemeyer> hazmat_: Yes, it's LGPL, and move whatever the ZooKeeper wish if

<kirkland> niemeyer: but the firSt one shoulD be foR thE coDe That Is paCkaged
<kirkland> NIemeYer: i've rejected it for now, SendiNg A Note TO SPamaps
<kirklaND> nIEMeyEr: As SooN aS He Fixes ThaT, and re-uPloads I'll aCcePt It
<niemeyer> kiRKlAnd: Cool, thaNks
<Kirkland> niemEyeR: fwiw, i JuSt aCCepteD enSemblE into oNEiric;  cOngratulaTiONs
<kirkLAnd> niemEYEr: I thiNk it'll fail to instaLL uNTil we get txzookEeper tOo, THoUGH
<kiRklAnd> niemeyeR: hOpefuLLy we'll sORt ALL Of iT Out today
<niemeYer> kirkland: wOooO
<SpamaPS> KirKLand: yeAh setUp.PY waS probably caRgo-cUlted in
<m_3> aWesome... COngrats TEam
<SpamApS> the OnlY biT witH An AcTuaL lICenSE tExt WAs tHe upstreAm DeBian/cOpyrIGHT
<spamApS> KirkLand: tHanks, I think we NeeD upsTReaM (read: HazmaT and NiEmeyeR) to claRify lIcEnsing. :)
<kirkland> SPamaPS: niemeyeR: trUe;  On bOtH projECts, upsTreAm MuST add a lICENSE FIle WiTH THe Complete text of the lIcENSe
<spamapS> I Think aN UpStREam debiaN/cOpyRighT IS authOritATiVe, but it sHould bE MaDe Clear in ThE files.
<KiRklAnd> spamaPs: i waS might Have rejeCted eNSemble on that baSIs, but I know it's TRiVIAl ANd niEmeYer will fix iT asaP ;-)
 * NiemEyer HIdEs
<SPAmapS> HazmaT_: tHInK You could ram some liceNsE clariFicatIon into txzookEeper?
<hazmaT_> sPAmapS: surE whaT Do YOu need... i think we Had diScussed gpl/LGpl.. but poSsiblY apache iF it went upSTReam.. niemEyeR?
<haZmaT_> hmM BUt It has mit licenSE In thE cOpyrighT deB file
<SpAmaPS> hAzmAt_: wElL the point Is, what is ThE lIcEnSe "tOday"?
<hAZmat_> SpamAps: lgPl At tHe momENt
<niemEyer> hAzmaT_: YEs, IT's LgPL, and wE CaN MOve tO wHaTeveR thE ZOoKeePer fOLks Wish if

<kirkland> niemeyer: butthe firstone s hou ldbe  for  the  code that isp acka ged
<kirkland> niemeye r: i' ve reje c te d itfor now ,  s e n din ganot et oSpama pS<kirkla nd> niemey er:  a s soon as he fi xes that,and  re-uploadsI'l l acce pt  it <niem eye r> ki rkland :  Cool,  thanks
< ki r kland> niemeye r :  f wiw,  i just acceptede ns e mble into onei ric; co n gr a t ula tio ns
<kirkla nd > nie m eyer: i th i n k  it ' ll fail to in stall until weget tx zo oke e per to o, th ou g h
< kirkland> n ieme yer: hope fullyw e'll so r t all o f it o uttod ay
< n ie me yer >k irk l an d:W ooo o
<Spama pS >kirkl and: y e a h se tup .pywas p robably cargo -cu lted in<m_3>  awes ome. ..  cong rats t eam
< Sp amapS> the only  bit  with anact ua l l ic enset ext wa s t heupstrea m debia n /co py r i g ht 
<SpamapS> kirklan d: t ha nks, I t hink w e  n ee d  upstrea m(re ad:h a zmatandn ie meyer) t o clar i fy  l icensin g.  :)
<k ir kla nd>  Spam a pS:niemey er: true ;  on both projects, upstream MUST ad d aL ICEN SEfile with t he c o mple te t e xt  of the l icens e< Sp a mapS> I think an up st ream d ebian /copyright is  authorita t i v e, but i t sh o ul d  be made clear  in t he files.< kirkland > Spa mapS: iwas might h ave reje cte d e nse mbl e on  that basis,b u t Ikn ow it's  tr ivial a ndnie mey erwi ll fix it  asap ;- ) *  n ie mey er hi d es
<Spam ap S>ha zma t_: t h ink yo u cou ld r am  s o melicense cl a r ific at io n in totx zooke eper ? 
<h azmat_>  SpamapS:  su r e wh at  d o you n eed... i thin kwe had dis cu sse d gpl/ l g pl.. but  possibly apache if itw ent ups tre am..niem eyer?
<ha zma t_> hm m b u t it h as mit  lice ns e i n the c o p yr igh tdeb file
< S p ama pS> h az mat_ : wellthe point is, what isthe license " tod ay"? < ha zma t _> Spa ma p S:l g pl at the momen t
<niemeye r> ha zmat_: Yes ,  it 's  LGPL,and wecan m o ve to w hatever t he ZooKee pe r fo l k s w ish if

<kirkland> niemeyer:_but the_first one should be_for the_code_that is_packaged
<kirkland>_niemeyer: i've rejected_it for now,_sending a note to_SpamapS
<kirkland> niemeyer: as_soon_as he fixes that, and re-uploads I'll accept it
<niemeyer> kirkland: Cool, thanks
<kirkland> niemeyer: fwiw,_i_just accepted_ensemble_into_oneiric;  congratulations
<kirkland> niemeyer: i_think it'll fail to install_until we_get txzookeeper too, though
<kirkland> niemeyer: hopefully we'll sort_all_of it out_today
<niemeyer> kirkland: Woooo
<SpamapS> kirkland: yeah setup.py was probably cargo-culted_in
<m_3> awesome... congrats team
<SpamapS> the only_bit with an_actual_license_text was the upstream_debian/copyright
<SpamapS> kirkland: thanks, I think we_need upstream (read: hazmat and niemeyer)_to clarify licensing. :)
<kirkland> SpamapS: niemeyer: true;_ on both projects, upstream MUST_add a LICENSE file with_the complete_text of the license
<SpamapS> I_think an upstream_debian/copyright is_authoritative, but it_should be made clear in the_files.
<kirkland> SpamapS: i_was might have rejected ensemble on_that_basis, but I_know_it's_trivial and_niemeyer will fix_it_asap ;-)
_*_niemeyer hides
<SpamapS> hazmat_: think you could_ram_some license clarification into txzookeeper?
<hazmat_> SpamapS: sure_what do you need..._i_think we had discussed_gpl/lgpl.. but possibly apache if_it went upstream.. niemeyer?
<hazmat_> hmm but_it has_mit license_in the copyright deb file
<SpamapS> hazmat_: well the point is, what_is the license "today"?
<hazmat_> SpamapS: lgpl_at the moment
<niemeyer> hazmat_:_Yes, it's_LGPL,_and we can_move_to whatever_the ZooKeeper folks wish if