On 23 Dec. 2017 16:54, "Paul Wise" wrote:
On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 9:07 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> (ie: the Apache license doesn't require listing copyright holders).
IANAL, but it seems pretty clear to me that this is not the case, at
least for source packages (see 4.c),
How do you get to en
Hi,
update on querying BTS for packages that can not build on a certain
architecture:
On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 11:46:53PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 07:24:28PM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 08:10:19PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > > May be I
Paul Wise writes:
> IANAL, but it seems pretty clear to me that this is not the case, at
> least for source packages (see 4.c), for binary packages we also have to
> distribute any associated NOTICE files (see 4.d, but I guess we violate
> this rule quite a lot), which I would guess usually conta
On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 9:07 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> (ie: the Apache license doesn't require listing copyright holders).
IANAL, but it seems pretty clear to me that this is not the case, at
least for source packages (see 4.c), for binary packages we also have
to distribute any associated NOTI
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Scott Kitterman
* Package name: libnitrokey
Version : 3.1
Upstream Author : Nitrokey Team
* URL : https://github.com/Nitrokey/libnitrokey
* License : LGPL3
Programming Lang: C++
Description : library to communica
Quoting Thomas Goirand (2017-12-23 01:45:43)
> On 12/20/2017 10:31 AM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>> Quoting Holger Levsen (2017-12-19 22:01:52)
>>> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 06:44:54PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> What if the author is anonymous then?
Then who granted the license?
>>>
>>>
On 12/19/2017 05:33 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> On 2017-12-19 15:17:56 +0100 (+0100), Thomas Goirand wrote:
> [...]
>> I wish you good luck with that. I attempted *twice* to have the
>> copyright holder information attached to each upstream project on
>> upstream OpenStack, and twice this was a fai
On 12/20/2017 12:46 AM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> The problem with all of these discussions, however, and the reason why I
> largely stopped participating in them (particularly with my Policy Editor
> hat on), is that the rules for what one actually has to do in Debian to
> get a package accepted are a
On 12/20/2017 10:31 AM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Quoting Holger Levsen (2017-12-19 22:01:52)
>> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 06:44:54PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
What if the author is anonymous then?
>>> Then who granted the license?
>>
>> the anonymous author.
>
> Ok. Then (assuming the sou
On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 8:51 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> I find demands on my time from those who
> aren't frustrating.
Hi, I'm nitpicking here, but that's what this whole thread is about:
demands on the time of Debian maintainers and whether it's necessary
for everyone listed in a Copyright lin
Scott Kitterman writes ("Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?"):
> Personally, as a member of the FTP Team (Assistant, not Master), I'm
> reluctant to participate in discussions like this unless I'm highly
> confident that I understand the team policy on such matters
> completely enough
On Wednesday, December 20, 2017 08:08:04 PM Marc Haber wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 15:46:58 -0800, Russ Allbery
>
> wrote:
> >The problem with all of these discussions, however, and the reason why I
> >largely stopped participating in them (particularly with my Policy Editor
> >hat on), is that
Hello Emilio,
Am 21.12.2017 um 12:34 schrieb Emilio Pozuelo Monfort:
> It's listed as
>
> Extra-Source-Only: yes
>
> So yes, it's normal for it to be there, as another package has Built-Using on
> that glibc version, so we need to ship the source.
Thanks Emilio, that was the missing link.
Phil
13 matches
Mail list logo
