On 2023-02-26 at 18:43 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 07:39:09AM -0700, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > As Jonas mentions, including the years allows people to know when
> > works
> > enter the public domain and the license becomes more liberal.
> > I think our users are better served
On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 07:39:09AM -0700, Sam Hartman wrote:
>
> As Jonas mentions, including the years allows people to know when works
> enter the public domain and the license becomes more liberal.
> I think our users are better served by knowing when the Debian packaging
> would enter the
Wouter Verhelst writes:
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 08:20:27AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Unfortunately, it's often against the upstream license.
>> Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
>> modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 08:20:27AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Daniel Baumann writes:
> > On 2/22/23 14:26, Peter Pentchev wrote:
>
> >> Wait, I may have been unclear. I did not mean that I want to omit the
> >> upstream copyright years *when they are there*.
>
> > I know you didn't mean that,
Paul Wise writes:
> On Wed, 2023-02-22 at 09:47 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> People doing this should be aware that you're probably waiving certain
>> damage provisions in US copyright law should you ever sue someone in
>> the US for violating the license on the Debian packaging, at least so
>>
On Wed, 2023-02-22 at 09:47 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> People doing this should be aware that you're probably waiving certain
> damage provisions in US copyright law should you ever sue someone in the
> US for violating the license on the Debian packaging, at least so far as I
> understand US
Quoting Richard Laager (2023-02-22 21:47:49)
> I maintain a package where upstream has dropped the years. I was told
> that multiple big tech companies with serious lawyers looked at this and
> felt it was fine.
Big tech companies typically don't use free software licensing for the
same reasons
Quoting Jérémy Lal (2023-02-22 17:04:01)
> Le mer. 22 févr. 2023 à 15:39, Sam Hartman a écrit :
>
> > > "Peter" == Peter Pentchev writes:
> >
> > Peter> Hi, So I've seen this idea floating around in the past couple
> > Peter> of years (and in some places even earlier), but I started
On February 22, 2023 9:38:48 PM UTC, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> "Peter" == Peter Pentchev writes:
>
>Peter> 3. Now, what about the `Files: debian/*` section of the
>Peter> debian/copyright file? The common wisdom seems to be that, if
>Peter> only to make it easier to submit patches
> "Peter" == Peter Pentchev writes:
Peter> 3. Now, what about the `Files: debian/*` section of the
Peter> debian/copyright file? The common wisdom seems to be that, if
Peter> only to make it easier to submit patches to the upstream
Peter> project, the debian/* files ought to
I maintain a package where upstream has dropped the years. I was told
that multiple big tech companies with serious lawyers looked at this and
felt it was fine.
I fully support:
- upstreams dropping years from copyright notices
- Debian not requiring maintainers to preserve years in
On Wed, 2023-02-22 at 07:39 -0700, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > > > >
> As Jonas mentions, including the years allows people to know when works
> enter the public domain and the license becomes more liberal.
> I think our users are better served by knowing when the Debian packaging
> would enter the
Not an ftp team member or anything, so this is just my personal opinion.
Peter Pentchev writes:
> 1. Does the Debian Project consider it okay for an upstream package to
>include one or more (or all) files with clear license grants (either
>included or referred to in the files), and with
On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 03:26:47PM +0200, Peter Pentchev wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 01:55:02PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > Quoting Peter Pentchev (2023-02-22 10:49:30)
> > > So I've seen this idea floating around in the past couple of years
> > > (and in some places even earlier), but
Daniel Baumann writes:
> On 2/22/23 14:26, Peter Pentchev wrote:
>> Wait, I may have been unclear. I did not mean that I want to omit the
>> upstream copyright years *when they are there*.
> I know you didn't mean that, nevertheless, it's imho good idea.
Unfortunately, it's often against the
Le mer. 22 févr. 2023 à 15:39, Sam Hartman a écrit :
> > "Peter" == Peter Pentchev writes:
>
> Peter> Hi, So I've seen this idea floating around in the past couple
> Peter> of years (and in some places even earlier), but I started
> Peter> doing it for the couple of pieces of
On Wed, 22 Feb 2023 15:40:49 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard
wrote:
>Quoting Daniel Baumann (2023-02-22 14:30:11)
>> while having copyright information centrally available per package in
>> d/copyright is definitly a usefull service, is providing the *years*
>> really a service worth providing?
>>
>>
On February 22, 2023 2:29:08 PM UTC, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>Quoting Peter Pentchev (2023-02-22 14:26:47)
>> On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 01:55:02PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>> > Quoting Peter Pentchev (2023-02-22 10:49:30)
>> > > So I've seen this idea floating around in the past couple of
Quoting Daniel Baumann (2023-02-22 14:30:11)
> On 2/22/23 13:55, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > As a redistributor I find it a good practice to include most possible
> > copyright and licensing information provided by upstream authors,
> > exactly because we are doing a service for our users
>
>
> "Peter" == Peter Pentchev writes:
Peter> Hi, So I've seen this idea floating around in the past couple
Peter> of years (and in some places even earlier), but I started
Peter> doing it for the couple of pieces of software that I am
Peter> upstream for after reading Daniel
Quoting Peter Pentchev (2023-02-22 14:26:47)
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 01:55:02PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > Quoting Peter Pentchev (2023-02-22 10:49:30)
> > > So I've seen this idea floating around in the past couple of years
> > > (and in some places even earlier), but I started doing it
On February 22, 2023 9:49:30 AM UTC, Peter Pentchev wrote:
>Hi,
>
>So I've seen this idea floating around in the past couple of years
>(and in some places even earlier), but I started doing it for
>the couple of pieces of software that I am upstream for after reading
>Daniel Stenberg's blog
It is also not required to put an author name or any other information,
either. Copyright will still apply.
But it makes it really a lot easier for anyone who wants to re-use the
work or parts of it if they know who to contact. This matters even more
for computer programs than for fiction novels
On 2/22/23 14:26, Peter Pentchev wrote:
> Wait, I may have been unclear. I did not mean that I want to omit
> the upstream copyright years *when they are there*.
I know you didn't mean that, nevertheless, it's imho good idea. I'd be
in favour of dropping them from d/copyright an let people have a
On 2/22/23 13:55, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> As a redistributor I find it a good practice to include most possible
> copyright and licensing information provided by upstream authors,
> exactly because we are doing a service for our users
while having copyright information centrally available per
On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 01:55:02PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Quoting Peter Pentchev (2023-02-22 10:49:30)
> > So I've seen this idea floating around in the past couple of years
> > (and in some places even earlier), but I started doing it for
> > the couple of pieces of software that I am
On Feb 22, Peter Pentchev wrote:
> So I've seen this idea floating around in the past couple of years
> (and in some places even earlier), but I started doing it for
> the couple of pieces of software that I am upstream for after reading
> Daniel Stenberg's blog entry:
>
Quoting Peter Pentchev (2023-02-22 10:49:30)
> So I've seen this idea floating around in the past couple of years
> (and in some places even earlier), but I started doing it for
> the couple of pieces of software that I am upstream for after reading
> Daniel Stenberg's blog entry:
>
Hi,
So I've seen this idea floating around in the past couple of years
(and in some places even earlier), but I started doing it for
the couple of pieces of software that I am upstream for after reading
Daniel Stenberg's blog entry:
29 matches
Mail list logo
