On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 16:51:24 -0600, Gunnar Wolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Of course, I'm playing with the numbers. There are still smaller
machines, there are the embedded-minded people, and of course, there
would be no sane way to verify the GPL3 was the same GPL3 all over if
we were to kill
Manoj Srivastava dijo [Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 09:16:17AM -0500]:
Of course, I'm playing with the numbers. There are still smaller
machines, there are the embedded-minded people, and of course, there
would be no sane way to verify the GPL3 was the same GPL3 all over if
we were to kill
Gunnar Wolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
_One_ thing that makes me favor common-licenses is being able to do
wide checks to count the number of packages saying to adhere to a
given license - As I said, nothing guarantees that the COPYING file in
my (upstream) package is the same as in yours (for
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 08:47:52 -0600, Gunnar Wolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Manoj Srivastava dijo [Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 09:16:17AM -0500]:
Of course, I'm playing with the numbers. There are still smaller
machines, there are the embedded-minded people, and of course,
there would be no sane way
Manoj Srivastava dijo [Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 01:57:30PM -0500]:
The question is not how many people have installed the package,
the question is how many packages on a given machine have the same
copyright, and thus would benefit by savings in disk space by bundling
them together
On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 12:26:37 -0700, Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I'd love to see some sort of guideline for this so that we could make
incorporation of new licenses into Policy more objective in the
future. I do agree that either priorities or popcon installations or
both should be
On Sun, 16 Mar 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have gotten no further feedback on this proposal. I would like to
resolve this bug for the next Policy release one way or the other.
Could others reading the Policy list please express an opinion on
Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Noted, thanks.
Feel free to reassign/clone this bug to base-files if you like.
I've cloned it to base-files so that we can independently track inclusion
in base-files and inclusion of the wording changes in Policy. Thanks!
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have gotten no further feedback on this proposal. I would like to
resolve this bug for the next Policy release one way or the other.
Could others reading the Policy list please express an opinion on
whether we should add the Apache 2.0 license to the
On Tue, 04 Mar 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I did a check today, and there are over 230 binary packages in the
archive with the Apache License. (I believe essentially all of them are
Apache 2.0, although the simple grep I did made that a bit harder to
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I did a check today, and there are over 230 binary packages in the
archive with the Apache License. (I believe essentially all of them are
Apache 2.0, although the simple grep I did made that a bit harder to
check.)
I think that reaches the threshold
On Tue, 2008-03-04 at 20:12 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
I have gotten no further feedback on this proposal. I would like to
resolve this bug for the next Policy release one way or the other. Could
others reading the Policy list please express an opinion on whether we
should add the Apache 2.0
tags 291460 patch
thanks
I did a check today, and there are over 230 binary packages in the archive
with the Apache License. (I believe essentially all of them are Apache
2.0, although the simple grep I did made that a bit harder to check.)
I think that reaches the threshold for making it
reassign 291460 debian-policy
thanks
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005, Barry Hawkins wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Package: base-files
Version: 3.1.2
Severity: wishlist
Since the Artistic, BSD, GPL, and LGPL licenses are included in
/usr/share/common-licenses, would it be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Package: base-files
Version: 3.1.2
Severity: wishlist
Since the Artistic, BSD, GPL, and LGPL licenses are included in
/usr/share/common-licenses, would it be possible to get the Apache
Software License versions 1.1[0] and 2.0[1] included as well? A
15 matches
Mail list logo
