On ti, 2011-01-18 at 08:00 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> I am hoping that given SPDX is advancing towards beta release, they will
> fill these pages in a not too long time. But in the meantime, we could
> add a link to their license table, if necessary:
>
> diff --git a/dep5.mdwn b/dep5.mdwn
> in
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 08:00:27AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 03:31:38PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit :
It seems to me that the third patch has been applied by now, although
the referenced SPDX web pages for BSD licenses are empty.
Was that deliberate? I feel th
Le Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 03:31:38PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit :
>
> It seems to me that the third patch has been applied by now,
> although the referenced SPDX web pages for BSD licenses are empty.
>
> Was that deliberate? I feel that it makes the current draft not
> appropriate for widespr
> > Le Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 09:09:09PM +0200, Lars Wirzenius a écrit :
> > >
> > > I think I agree with your proposal to link to SPDX. Alternatively, we
> > > could collect the licenses as attachments to the spec, or point at the
> > > ones on the OSI site. I'd rather avoid attaching things, but o
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 09:53:55AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
I just realised that the SPDX site is not yet ready as their license
links point to empty pages: http://spdx.org/licenses/
I attached three patches. The first removes the FreeBSD license, the
second adds missing links to upstream
Applied all three patches, thanks.
On to, 2011-01-13 at 09:53 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 09:09:09PM +0200, Lars Wirzenius a écrit :
> >
> > I think I agree with your proposal to link to SPDX. Alternatively, we
> > could collect the licenses as attachments to the spec,
Le Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 09:09:09PM +0200, Lars Wirzenius a écrit :
>
> I think I agree with your proposal to link to SPDX. Alternatively, we
> could collect the licenses as attachments to the spec, or point at the
> ones on the OSI site. I'd rather avoid attaching things, but otherwise
> I'm fine
On ma, 2011-01-10 at 19:24 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> The current version of the DEP specifies that the differences with the SPDX
> format will be tracked. My understanding of this, and the discussions we had
> before, is that we will use the same short names than SPDX unless specified
> otherw
Le Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 10:00:47AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit :
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 12:58:48AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > I don't know that there need to be any normative changes to correct this,
> > but I think there definitely need to be some clearer pointers to an external
> >
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 12:58:48AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I don't know that there need to be any normative changes to correct this,
> but I think there definitely need to be some clearer pointers to an external
> reference for the license definitions for these short names.
This is a very g
Hi Lars,
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 10:49:02PM +, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> All of the below is now done, I've today done the final bits by
> splitting BSD into BSD-[234]-clause and renaming some licenses to match
> the names in SPDX.
Reading over the present contents of http://dep.debian.net/deps
All of the below is now done, I've today done the final bits by
splitting BSD into BSD-[234]-clause and renaming some licenses to match
the names in SPDX.
As far as I know, these were the final changes that were needed. Does
anyone object if I change the status of DEP5 to CANDIDATE, and push the
v
12 matches
Mail list logo
