Re: [UPLOADED] hex-a-hop (updated package)
2007/9/11, Jens Seidel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 03:38:06PM +0200, Bas Wijnen wrote: > > I uploaded the package. I still have some comments (see below), but > > they weren't enough reason to not upload. > > Thanks. > > > On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 12:20:11AM +0200, Jens Seidel wrote: > > > > this is a "GPL without version" claim, which according to the GPL > > > > means any version is acceptable. I > > > > > > It's still "GPL without version". I need the permission of Miriam and > > > maybe others before I can change it. > > > > Strictly speaking, you don't. You can choose to accept any version, for > > example "all versions >= 2", like the game itself is licensed. Then you > > have the right to distribute using that license. > > > > However, I agree it is nice to ask people what they intended, and not > > remove license options without reason. > > OK, will probably do this with the next upload. Go ahead Jens, no problem at all :) The idea was mainly: "This patch is released under the same license as the game itself and the packaging", but whatever license or text you prefer will be OK for me :) You can change it yourself if you want, but if you prefer to do it formally nice, just tell me the text you prefer and I'll do the commit myself :) The idea is that not only the program itself and the packaging have a license, but also the patches do have a copyright and license. Maybe the best text would be "This patch is licensed undet the same license as the program, see debian/copyright" or something like that. Greetings, Miry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [UPLOADED] hex-a-hop (updated package)
On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 04:13:21PM +0200, Jens Seidel wrote: > > What I meant is that if you consider license information of any value to > > the reader of the manual page, it should contain a link to the actual > > license text (it can be on the internet as well). In fact, I expect it > > not to add much value at all, and I would have removed it completely. > > But it's up to you, and if you like it better this way, again, it's not > > wrong. > > Still not sure about it. I thought most GPL license statements occur > without a reference to the full license as GPL is very well known. Ok, that makes sense. Forget about the link then. :-) But what remains is that manual pages don't usually contain license information (non-free ones may, I don't know, I don't use them ;-) ). So to put it in there you'd need a reason IMO. People who want to know license information should look in /usr/share/doc/$package/copyright, and not in the manual page. But feel free to disagree. :-) Thanks, Bas -- I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org). If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader. Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word. Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either. For more information, see http://pcbcn10.phys.rug.nl/e-mail.html signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [UPLOADED] hex-a-hop (updated package)
On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 03:38:06PM +0200, Bas Wijnen wrote: > I uploaded the package. I still have some comments (see below), but > they weren't enough reason to not upload. Thanks. > On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 12:20:11AM +0200, Jens Seidel wrote: > > > this is a "GPL without version" claim, which according to the GPL > > > means any version is acceptable. I > > > > It's still "GPL without version". I need the permission of Miriam and > > maybe others before I can change it. > > Strictly speaking, you don't. You can choose to accept any version, for > example "all versions >= 2", like the game itself is licensed. Then you > have the right to distribute using that license. > > However, I agree it is nice to ask people what they intended, and not > remove license options without reason. OK, will probably do this with the next upload. > > > - The manual page mentions the license. This is not required, but if > > > you do it, it would be good to point to /usr/share/common-licenses for > > > the complete text. > > > > Not done. This would unfuzzy all translations. This is not necessary and > > would be Debian specific. > > What I meant is that if you consider license information of any value to > the reader of the manual page, it should contain a link to the actual > license text (it can be on the internet as well). In fact, I expect it > not to add much value at all, and I would have removed it completely. > But it's up to you, and if you like it better this way, again, it's not > wrong. Still not sure about it. I thought most GPL license statements occur without a reference to the full license as GPL is very well known. > > > On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 01:15:04AM +0200, Jens Seidel wrote: > > I called lintian on the .dsc file instead the .changes file :-) > > Ok, that's also something you shouldn't do. :-) Perhaps lintian should > warn about it... I opened already #441636 but it will probably be rejected as lintian works on .dsc files as well -- just differently. Jens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[UPLOADED] hex-a-hop (updated package)
Hi Jens, I uploaded the package. I still have some comments (see below), but they weren't enough reason to not upload. On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 12:20:11AM +0200, Jens Seidel wrote: > > this is a "GPL without version" claim, which according to the GPL > > means any version is acceptable. I > > It's still "GPL without version". I need the permission of Miriam and > maybe others before I can change it. Strictly speaking, you don't. You can choose to accept any version, for example "all versions >= 2", like the game itself is licensed. Then you have the right to distribute using that license. However, I agree it is nice to ask people what they intended, and not remove license options without reason. This is a bit of a special case, because "GPL without version" only implicitly means "any version". If that is really intended, it is much better to really write it. > Nevertheless I consider it not as critical. On that I agree. It's not wrong, it just could have been more clear. > > - The manual page mentions the license. This is not required, but if > > you do it, it would be good to point to /usr/share/common-licenses for > > the complete text. > > Not done. This would unfuzzy all translations. This is not necessary and > would be Debian specific. What I meant is that if you consider license information of any value to the reader of the manual page, it should contain a link to the actual license text (it can be on the internet as well). In fact, I expect it not to add much value at all, and I would have removed it completely. But it's up to you, and if you like it better this way, again, it's not wrong. > > On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 01:15:04AM +0200, Jens Seidel wrote: > > > The package appears to be lintian clean. > > > > You may be using lintian from stable? The one from sid gives the > > errors, anyway. > > I called lintian on the .dsc file instead the .changes file :-) Ok, that's also something you shouldn't do. :-) Perhaps lintian should warn about it... > PS: Sorry Bas, I did not yet fixed your hex-a-hop bug report ... No problem, it's only a wishlist bug. :-) Thanks, Bas -- I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org). If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader. Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word. Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either. For more information, see http://pcbcn10.phys.rug.nl/e-mail.html signature.asc Description: Digital signature
