Quoting Simon McVittie (2014-09-22 22:05:20)
On 22/09/14 18:48, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Quoting Markus Koschany (2014-09-22 19:25:20)
Version 1:
License: GPL-2+
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or [...]
This program is distributed in the hope that it will be [...]
Hi,
FTWIW, the copyright format specification
https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/#license-field
explicitly states:
Use of a standard short name does not override the Debian Policy
requirement to include the full license text in
On 23/09/14 09:01, Joachim Breitner wrote:
(Although I find that unfortunate, and makes me much less motivated to
find out whether a license that looks like a BSD license is actually
one of them on the list, if I still have to include it in the file.)
There are enough subtly different variants
On 2014-09-23, Simon McVittie s...@debian.org wrote:
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
you could also just
Hi,
On 22.09.2014 21:57, Simon McVittie wrote:
On 22/09/14 17:15, Markus Koschany wrote:
[...]
The point headed Its not enough to have the following two-liner in
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/03/msg00023.html
appears to be intended to be a requirement to reproduce the
Hi all,
I am seeking clarification how a proper license paragraph for copyright
format 1.0 should be written. A while ago I have started to use this
format [1] for common licenses when I saw that fellow maintainers did
the same. I was recently informed that this format warrants a reject by
the
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 06:15:08PM +0200, Markus Koschany wrote:
What do we gain by quoting common licenses in debian/copyright over and
over again?
We don't quote (i.e. include the *full* text of) common licenses over
and over again, that's precisely what /usr/share/common-licenses is for,
and
On 22.09.2014 18:36, Santiago Vila wrote:
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 06:15:08PM +0200, Markus Koschany wrote:
What do we gain by quoting common licenses in debian/copyright over and
over again?
We don't quote (i.e. include the *full* text of) common licenses over
and over again, that's
Quoting Markus Koschany (2014-09-22 19:25:20)
On 22.09.2014 18:36, Santiago Vila wrote:
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 06:15:08PM +0200, Markus Koschany wrote:
What do we gain by quoting common licenses in debian/copyright over
and over again?
We don't quote (i.e. include the *full* text of)
On 22/09/14 17:15, Markus Koschany wrote:
A while ago I have started to use this
format [1] for common licenses when I saw that fellow maintainers did
the same.
[1] Examples:
License: GPL-2+
On Debian systems, the complete text of the GNU General Public
License version 2 can be found in
On 22/09/14 18:48, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Quoting Markus Koschany (2014-09-22 19:25:20)
Version 1:
License: GPL-2+
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or [...]
This program is distributed in the hope that it will be [...]
You should have received a copy of the GNU
11 matches
Mail list logo