Hello,
there is a new advent on the Internet horizon which is the social
micropayment. Regular web users pay in some money and distribute that
with respect to their clicks in the web. I feel that Debian should
somehow participate with that, i.e. we should have links whenever we
display a package
Hi,
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 05:02:43PM +0200, Steffen Möller wrote:
flattr or otherwise support that package. The amount collected should
then go to upstream. Maybe we should not do this for all packages but
only when upstream asks for it.
I guess we as a project will already run into
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 05:02:43PM +0200, Steffen Möller wrote:
Hello,
there is a new advent on the Internet horizon which is the social
micropayment. Regular web users pay in some money and distribute that
with respect to their clicks in the web. I feel that Debian should
somehow
On 08/17/2010 05:43 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 05:02:43PM +0200, Steffen Möller wrote:
Hello,
there is a new advent on the Internet horizon which is the social
micropayment. Regular web users pay in some money and distribute that
with respect to their clicks in the
Hi,
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010, Steffen Möller wrote:
there is a new advent on the Internet horizon which is the social
micropayment. Regular web users pay in some money and distribute that
with respect to their clicks in the web. I feel that Debian should
somehow participate with that, i.e. we
Steffen Möller steffen_moel...@gmx.de writes:
there is a new advent on the Internet horizon which is the social
micropayment. Regular web users pay in some money and distribute that
with respect to their clicks in the web. I feel that Debian should
somehow participate with that, i.e. we
On su, 2010-08-15 at 06:25 +1200, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
So we have at least three suggestions on the table now:
1. Rename Maintainer: to Contact:
2. Rename Maintainer: to Upstream-Contact: and Name: to Upstream-Name:
3. Drop both Maintainer: and Name: completely, even as optional fields
There would seem to be at least a rough consensus that DEP-5 should
follow Policy 5.1 on control file syntax. The open question how to
specify that: it is my understanding that most people favor just
referring to the relevant Policy section and not duplicate things in
DEP-5, but since that is also
On ma, 2010-08-16 at 16:19 +1200, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
* a 24-hour moratorium on posting about DEP-5 at all
That went well. Thank you everyone for giving space to breathe.
* after that is over, not discussing every possible topic at once, just
a couple at a time
I've commented on two topics
Hello,
On 08/17/2010 09:49 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
Steffen Möller steffen_moel...@gmx.de writes:
there is a new advent on the Internet horizon which is the social
micropayment. Regular web users pay in some money and distribute that
with respect to their clicks in the web. I feel that
Le Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 09:29:33AM +1200, Lars Wirzenius a écrit :
For Disclaimer, and Comment if we add that, it might be helpful to have
empty lines, but word-wrapping is definitely needed. Newlines are not
significant.
Hi Lars,
some debian/copyright files contain extracts of
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes:
Le Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 09:29:33AM +1200, Lars Wirzenius a écrit :
For Disclaimer, and Comment if we add that, it might be helpful to have
empty lines, but word-wrapping is definitely needed. Newlines are not
significant.
some debian/copyright files
On ti, 2010-08-17 at 18:24 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Those exchanges aren't the actual license or copyright information, which
can still be stated in a structured form. They're usually just defenses
of why thet claimed license information is what it is (when it may, for
example, contradict
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 06:24:39PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
I wonder if we should have some terminator for the machine-readable
portion of debian/copyright, below which is free-form supporting material
That would be the simplest way, a 'stop reading here' line for the
parsers. That way
On Wed, 18 Aug 2010, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
If the e-mail is just a clarification to the license and does not
modify it, then I guess License is not the right place. Rather than
munge it into Comment, I guess we need a new field. However, how
often do these things happen? If it is very rarely,
15 matches
Mail list logo
