On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 09:16:29 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
... how this policy is compatible with the observed fact of
a dearth of such all-copyright-notices duplication in the actual Debian
packages.
I seems you are looking at other packages than me; I know quite a few
which follow the
Hi,
I'd have to agree with Jonathan Nieder and Charles Plessy that the
proposed change does not reflect current consensus.
On Mon, Feb 01, 2010 at 11:50:25AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com writes:
--- a/policy.sgml
+++ b/policy.sgml
@@ -570,7 +570,7 @@
Steve M. Robbins st...@sumost.ca writes:
I'd have to agree with Jonathan Nieder and Charles Plessy that the
proposed change does not reflect current consensus.
That's my impression too.
On Mon, Feb 01, 2010 at 11:50:25AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com writes:
Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au writes:
URL:http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2010/01/msg00443.html
URL:http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2010/01/msg00443.html
The first link should have been
URL:http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2009/08/msg00963.html.
--
\ “If you
On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 09:16:29AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
There is an additional factor here. Reportedly, the ftpmasters have a
policy that all Debian packages must have all copyright notices for the
package duplicated in the package's ???copyright??? file.
Agreed, the ftpmasters have a
Steve M. Robbins st...@sumost.ca writes:
On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 09:16:29AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
There is an additional factor here. Reportedly, the ftpmasters have
a policy that all Debian packages must have all copyright notices
for the package duplicated in the package's
Hi,
Just wanted to clarify a few points from your message, out of order.
No patch is attached to this message. I will probably download the
policy sources and write one soon, if no one beats me to it.
First a point you made towards the end:
Steve M. Robbins wrote:
On Mon, Feb 01, 2010 at
On Mon, Feb 01, 2010 at 09:25:48AM -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Instead, I have always read that passage to mean
Every package must be accompanied by a verbatim copy of
its copyright information and distribution license in
the file /usr/share/doc/package/copyright.
I
On Sun, Feb 07, 2010 at 11:49:03AM -0600, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
Agreed. The license for using and distributing the files in the
BINARY package is useful and necessary. But I can't imagine that many
binary package users would need the hundreds of copyright statements
from multi-author works
On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 10:43:54AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
That it's not called a policy doesn't stop it from being one. See
URL:http://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html, which in regard to
this current discussion links to a 2006 message from an FTP Master:
It links to a 2006 message from
On Sun, Feb 07, 2010 at 06:59:06PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sun, Feb 07, 2010 at 11:49:03AM -0600, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
Agreed. The license for using and distributing the files in the
BINARY package is useful and necessary. But I can't imagine that many
binary package users
Steve M. Robbins wrote:
On Sun, Feb 07, 2010 at 06:59:06PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
The motivation is to put an end to the contrafactual interpretation of this
clause in Policy that Ben Finney continues to advance in discussions on
Debian mailing lists.
Really? The change is aimed to
Hi,
On Sun, Feb 07, 2010 at 11:23:35PM -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Steve M. Robbins wrote:
On Sun, Feb 07, 2010 at 06:59:06PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
The motivation is to put an end to the contrafactual interpretation of this
clause in Policy that Ben Finney continues to advance
Hi,
Steve Langasek wrote:
--- a/policy.sgml
+++ b/policy.sgml
@@ -570,7 +570,7 @@
p
Every package must be accompanied by a verbatim copy of
- its copyright and distribution license in the file
+ its copyright notices and distribution license in the file
Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com writes:
Steve Langasek wrote:
--- a/policy.sgml
+++ b/policy.sgml
@@ -570,7 +570,7 @@
p
Every package must be accompanied by a verbatim copy of
- its copyright and distribution license in the file
+ its copyright notices and
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 22:25:56 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.8.3.0
Tags: patch
User: debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
Usertags: informative
Clarify what is meant by verbatim copy of its copyright and distribution
license to be explicit about what
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.8.3.0
Tags: patch
User: debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
Usertags: informative
Clarify what is meant by verbatim copy of its copyright and distribution
license to be explicit about what Debian has always required for this file,
to put to rest the silly arguments
Steve Langasek steve.langa...@canonical.com writes:
Clarify what is meant by verbatim copy of its copyright and
distribution license to be explicit about what Debian has always
required for this file, to put to rest the silly arguments that this
should be parsed as (copyright and
Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au writes:
Steve Langasek steve.langa...@canonical.com writes:
If someone wants to argue that Policy should *not* require reproducing
the copyright notices when this is not required by the license, let
them argue that Policy should be changed rather than
19 matches
Mail list logo
