Hello Sam,
On Tue 01 Dec 2020 at 08:07AM -05, Sam Hartman wrote:
> * Sean would prefer that you not be able to collapse years. He hasn't
> said whether his objection is strong enough to try and block
> consensus.
My initial comments were motivated by the very same concerns as Russ:
On Sat
On Tue, Dec 01, 2020 at 08:07:34AM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> * Holder, you and I would prefer that you be able to collapse years.
Basically, I want to reduce the horrible busy-work of creating and
maintaining debian/copyright files to the barely acceptable minimum. I
literally spent days in the
On Tue, Dec 01, 2020 at 02:03:59PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> My rationale is that debian/copyright is a summary, it's not the license
> text in the files.
> I absolutely agree we shouldn't go change people's actual copyright
> notices in the files.
that. and what Bill said.
> As a copyright
> "Bill" == Bill Allombert writes:
Bill> Let us be honest with ourselves: what matter for most purpose
Bill> is the position of the ftp-master team that processes the NEW
Bill> queue. What policy says is secondary.
I absolutely agree we should coordinate appropriately with the
On Tue, Dec 01, 2020 at 02:03:59PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote: > > "Russ" ==
Russ Allbery writes:
>
> Russ> That said, I tend to be hyper-conservative and nit-picky about
> Russ> things like this, accurately representing copyright years
> Russ> isn't in my top thousand things I
> "Russ" == Russ Allbery writes:
Russ> That said, I tend to be hyper-conservative and nit-picky about
Russ> things like this, accurately representing copyright years
Russ> isn't in my top thousand things I want people to work on in
Russ> Debian, and I'm highly dubious that it
Guillem Jover writes:
> Personally I see a big distinction between someone doing it for their
> own copyright claims, and doing that for someone else's.
Yeah, this is where I'm at too. It feels weird, and I'm not sure it's
technically compliant with the license requirement to preserve the
On Thu, 2020-11-26 at 08:55:21 +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> AIUI the first year of contributions and the last year of contributions are
> important data points for each contributor for a project, and mostly only
> the last year as that might be used to calculate when a project becomes
> public
Here's my take on the discussion so far.
And I want to stress that I am not a policy editor, and to the extent
that they read the discusssion differently than I do, their reading
controls.
* Russ and I would be willing to accept either outcome--either you can
collapse years or you cannot.
*
On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 03:32:04PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> I'd like to see people chime in who have not participated in the
> discussion yet.
AIUI the first year of contributions and the last year of contributions are
important data points for each contributor for a project, and mostly only
I'd like to see people chime in who have not participated in the
discussion yet.
I prefer your original text but we'd need to get support for it.
It sounds like we're fairly evenly split among the current participants
in the issue.
--Sam
On Sat, Nov 21, 2020 at 12:30:07PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Marc Haber writes:
> > On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 01:58:51PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> >> On Fri 20 Nov 2020 at 03:23PM +01, Marc Haber wrote:
>
> >> > +Copyright field. It is ok to have years
> >> > +covered that
Sam Hartman writes:
> I appreciate that the FSF cares about old years and things going into
> public domain. I think that we should value being able to coalesce
> years more than we value that pedantry. I think the FSF has adequately
> explained the legal rationale for their view, I think
> "Russ" == Russ Allbery writes:
Russ> Marc Haber writes:
Russ> The years are an annoying bit of pedantry. The short version
Russ> is that US copyright law requires a year in the notice, and
Russ> that year is supposed to represent a year in which a
Russ> copyrightable
Marc Haber writes:
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 01:58:51PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
>> On Fri 20 Nov 2020 at 03:23PM +01, Marc Haber wrote:
>> > +Copyright field. It is ok to have years
>> > +covered that are not listed in the original notices.
>> I don't think we can assume it
On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 01:58:51PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Fri 20 Nov 2020 at 03:23PM +01, Marc Haber wrote:
>
> > +Copyright field. It is ok to have years
> > +covered that are not listed in the original notices.
>
> I don't think we can assume it is okay to do this.
Hello,
Thanks for the patch.
On Fri 20 Nov 2020 at 03:23PM +01, Marc Haber wrote:
> +Copyright field. It is ok to have years
> +covered that are not listed in the original notices.
I don't think we can assume it is okay to do this. You can combine
2009--2015 and 2020 into just
On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 12:02:48PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> The former. If you'd like to propose a patch making this clearer we
> could get it applied.
How about this:
diff --git a/copyright-format-1.0.xml b/copyright-format-1.0.xml
index b8df359..71d7c1c 100644
---
Marc Haber writes:
> But what if file A says
> | Copyright 2008 John Smith
> | Copyright 2005-2015 Angela Watts
> and file B has:
> | Copyright 2010 Angela Watts
> Can this be gathered together to:
> | Copyright 2008 John Smith
> | Copyright 2005-2015 Angela Watts
I'm fairly sure
Hello,
On Thu 19 Nov 2020 at 05:07PM +01, Marc Haber wrote:
> /usr/share/doc/debian-policy/copyright-format-1.0.txt.gz says
>
> |The Copyright field collects all relevant copyright notices for the files
> |of this paragraph. Not all copyright notices may apply to every
> individual
> |
Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.5.0.3
Severity: minor
Hi,
/usr/share/doc/debian-policy/copyright-format-1.0.txt.gz says
|The Copyright field collects all relevant copyright notices for the files
|of this paragraph. Not all copyright notices may apply to every individual
|file, and
21 matches
Mail list logo
