Hi,
I originally posted this in -devel, but was pointed here as a better
place to discuss this issue.
stackoverflow.com, which is a website featuring questions and answers on
a wide range of topics in computer programming, has just offered [1]
free advertising for open source projects wanting to
Bonjour,
Je m'appelle Nancy, webmaster de www.open-business.info
http://www.open-business.info/> . Suite à une
petite visite sur votre site http://www.debian.org , je souhaiterais vous
inviter à notre nouveau programme d'échange de liens.
Pour rappel, l'échange de lien est un procédé permettant
Hi
(quoting almost everything on purpose)
On Tue, 22 Dec 2009, Tom Feiner wrote:
> stackoverflow.com, which is a website featuring questions and answers on
> a wide range of topics in computer programming, has just offered [1]
> free advertising for open source projects wanting to advertise
> rec
Hi,
2009/12/22 Raphael Hertzog :
>> Does anyone know a graphic designer or someone that can whip up a nice
>> ad which will attract developers to debian?
>
> Maybe pixelgirl (Agnieszka Czajkowska) could do it (ccing her for info).
https://penta.debconf.org/dc9_schedule/events/459.en.html
--
Héc
Hi,
a few remarks about DEP #5:
"The Expat License" is rather unknown under this name, thus I propose
adding a comment like this to its description:
Expat The Expat License (often referred as MIT license, see
comment in *Problematic Licenses*)
It's might not be obvious for a
Carsten Hey writes:
> It's might not be obvious for all which BSD licenses are meant by "BSD"
> and "FreeBSD", thus I propose appending " (3-clause BSD)" and
> respectively " (2-clause BSD)" to their descriptions.
That's even more ambiguous, though. It doesn't say *which* clauses; any
three-clau
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 09:57:05AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> Carsten Hey writes:
> > It's might not be obvious for all which BSD licenses are meant by "BSD"
> > and "FreeBSD", thus I propose appending " (3-clause BSD)" and
> > respectively " (2-clause BSD)" to their descriptions.
>
> That's even
Le Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 11:25:29PM +0100, Carsten Hey a écrit :
>
> "Format-Specification:" is needlessly long, "Format:" would be
> sufficient.
Dear Carsten,
I suppose your suggestion echoes the previous discussion about “ugliness” of
the proposal, which took place on the wiki before it became
Le Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 09:57:05AM +1100, Ben Finney a écrit :
> Carsten Hey writes:
>
> > It's might not be obvious for all which BSD licenses are meant by "BSD"
> > and "FreeBSD", thus I propose appending " (3-clause BSD)" and
> > respectively " (2-clause BSD)" to their descriptions.
>
> That'
Charles Plessy writes:
> For the contents of the Format field, I think that more than allowing
> forks, the main motivation of using URIs is to let the readers of the
> Debian copyright file find the specification easily.
> After the DEP is accepted, it can be moved to a more stable location,
>
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 01:22:47PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Here are reasons why I do not think that licenses inspired by the BSD license
> can be efficiently classified by counting the number of clauses.
>
> First, the license of the Berkeley Software Distribution ("BSD") source code
> copyr
Hi all,
One concern I have with the current DEP5 draft is that the set of keywords
for common licenses is very NIH. Fedora, for example, has an existing list
of license keywords that are widely deployed, as can be found here:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Software_License_List
I thi
Steve Langasek writes:
> One concern I have with the current DEP5 draft is that the set of keywords
> for common licenses is very NIH. Fedora, for example, has an existing list
> of license keywords that are widely deployed, as can be found here:
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Soft
13 matches
Mail list logo
