la, 2009-06-13 kello 10:52 +0200, Josselin Mouette kirjoitti:
> So, how about dropping entirely anything that’s related to files and
> only keep the amount of information we are requiring now? I feel sorry
> for the giant bikeshedding thread about spaces and commas, but it is not
> getting us anyw
Le samedi 13 juin 2009 à 23:25 +0900, Charles Plessy a écrit :
> Le Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 10:52:36AM +0200, Josselin Mouette a écrit :
> >
> > So, how about dropping entirely anything that’s related to files and
> > only keep the amount of information we are requiring now? I feel sorry
> > for the
Charles Plessy writes:
> What you probably complain about is this:
>
> Your debian/copyright file must contain the following information:
>
>- The author(s) name
>- The year(s) of the copyright
>- The used license(s)
>- The URL to the upstream source
>
> In many package
Johan Henriksson writes:
> managed to ignore this discussion until now but anyway tossing in a coin.
>
> would it not be more interesting to standardize the format beyond
> debian? if you get upstream authors and language designers to supply the
> files then more "expensive" formats can be used,
On Sat, 2009-06-13 at 15:28 +0200, Andreas Rottmann wrote:
> > A build tool that pollutes the licence of what its used to build would
> > be rather problematic
> >
> Indeed. But do you always need an exception? I had the impression that
> the output of a GPL'd tool could be licensed at will, unle
Neil Williams writes:
> On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 10:52:36 +0200
> Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Copyright: © 2008 John Doe
> >© 2009 Initrode, Inc.
> > # Actually I don’t think we should include detailed copyright
> > # information, but that’s another story.
>
> If we can get a list of lic
Robert Collins writes:
> On Sat, 2009-06-13 at 13:35 +0200, Andreas Rottmann wrote:
>>
>> For that to work, you'd have to somehow indicate which files' licenses
>> are going to be relevant to which binary package. For instance, many
>> packages have (parts of the) build-system machinery GPL'd (e
On Sat, 2009-06-13 at 13:35 +0200, Andreas Rottmann wrote:
>
> For that to work, you'd have to somehow indicate which files' licenses
> are going to be relevant to which binary package. For instance, many
> packages have (parts of the) build-system machinery GPL'd (e.g. the
> ltmain.sh from libtoo
Frank Lin PIAT writes:
> On Sat, 2009-06-13 at 09:17 +, Bart Martens wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 10:52:36AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> >
>> > The real problem with DEP5 is not the format (which is not worse for a
>> > small package than the current one), it is with the unrealist
On Sat, 2009-06-13 at 09:17 +, Bart Martens wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 10:52:36AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> >
> > The real problem with DEP5 is not the format (which is not worse for a
> > small package than the current one), it is with the unrealistic amount
> > of information th
On 11780 March 1977, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> So, how about dropping entirely anything that’s related to files and
> only keep the amount of information we are requiring now? I feel sorry
> for the giant bikeshedding thread about spaces and commas, but it is not
> getting us anywhere.
You mean
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 10:52:36 +0200
Josselin Mouette wrote:
... the first positive contribution to DEP5 that I've seen in months -
but then I haven't been paying a lot of attention to the bike-shedding.
> currently, DEP5 is not, contrary to what the name says, about a
> “machine-readable debian/c
Hi,
currently, DEP5 is not, contrary to what the name says, about a
“machine-readable debian/copyright”. It is about providing a much
broader amount of licensing information on our source packages.
The real problem with DEP5 is not the format (which is not worse for a
small package than the curre
13 matches
Mail list logo
