date:20150505

Bug#714058: cc65 packaging

2015-05-05 Thread GCS

Hi,

On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 1:26 PM, Oliver Schmidt ol...@web.de wrote:
 The man pages could be generated with help2man, or they could point to
 the GNU info files.
 It seems that
 linuxdoc -B txt --man ...
 groff -man ...
 might be another option.
 Will check this once I get home.

 On the other hand, Oliver promised me to
 add something like a consecutive number if I really need it for
 packaging purposes.
 I can confirm this.
 Please do it then to confirm which commit should be considered a
stable release. If possible update the file LICENSE as well to be zlib
and GPL-2 as you previously noted.

Thanks,
Laszlo/GCS


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/cakjshr22fsnzs4dhgqsrqsf0c4nhowa_vmo59pdx7f0muyq...@mail.gmail.com

Bug#784326: ITP: ruby-rails-html-sanitizer -- This gem can be used to sanitize HTML fragments in Rails applications

2015-05-05 Thread Balasankar C

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Balasankar C balasank...@autistici.org

* Package name: ruby-rails-html-sanitizer
  Version : 1.0.2
  Upstream Author : Rafael Mendonça França
* URL : https://github.com/rails/rails-html-sanitizer/
* License : Expat
  Programming Lang: Ruby
  Description : This gem can be used to sanitize HTML fragments in Rails 
applications


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150505074148.30291.1602.reportbug@sasalam

On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 2:17 PM, Oliver Schmidt ol...@web.de wrote:
Iff everything else is settled regarding packaging (incl. licensing) I'll
reach out to the list members and ask for last-minute contribtions. If that
phase is over I'll add a tag to the Git repo.
OK, sounds good.

If possible update the file LICENSE as well to be zlib
and GPL-2 as you previously noted.
There must be a misunderstanding!

I made a statement about _my_ contributions to cc65. I don't know who else
has contributed to cc65 before I started to maintain the upstream repo. In
fact I personally don't see how an exhaustive list of contributors can be
archived. And without acknowledgement from _all_ contributors I don't see me
changing _anything_ regarding the file LICENSE.
Then the first step is to ask everyone you (we?) know to allow the
relicensing of the whole cc65. This means all contributors of the code
who ever changed something in it, even a single character. Do others
like John R. Dunning or Ullrich von Bassewitz may have a full commit
history and/or list of the contributors over the years?
I'm _not_ a lawyer, but do we really need to reach everyone? Would it
be enough to ask only people who added their copyright messages in the
top of the files? I don't know if others can be counted as they left
the copyright to the actual source maintainer or not. At least I don't
see any sign that they claim any copyright of their contributions. The
LICENSE file states only the previous two coders have the copyright.
Not a single sentence mentions others who may have contributed to the
source.
Until this license issue is not solved, cc65 remains non-free from the
Debian point of view. :(

Regards,
Laszlo/GCS

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
https://lists.debian.org/CAKjSHr28vXC=gtfxaptv6tiuhezq6uzkwtmt1srsga83bai...@mail.gmail.com

53 matches

Mail list logo