Debian accepting Social Micropayment?

2010-08-17 Thread Steffen Möller
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

Re: Debian accepting Social Micropayment?

2010-08-17 Thread Patrick Schoenfeld
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

Re: Debian accepting Social Micropayment?

2010-08-17 Thread Jonas Smedegaard
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

Re: Debian accepting Social Micropayment?

2010-08-17 Thread Steffen Möller
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

Re: Debian accepting Social Micropayment?

2010-08-17 Thread Raphael Hertzog
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

Re: Debian accepting Social Micropayment?

2010-08-17 Thread Russ Allbery
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

Re: [DEP5] [patch] Renaming the ‘Maintainer’ field ‘Contact’

2010-08-17 Thread Lars Wirzenius
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

DEP-5: general file syntax

2010-08-17 Thread Lars Wirzenius
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

Re: [OT] Re: [DEP5] [patch] Renaming the ‘Maintainer’ field ‘Contact’

2010-08-17 Thread Lars Wirzenius
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

Re: Debian accepting Social Micropayment?

2010-08-17 Thread Steffen Möller
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

Re: DEP-5: general file syntax

2010-08-17 Thread Charles Plessy
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

Re: DEP-5: general file syntax

2010-08-17 Thread Russ Allbery
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

Re: DEP-5: general file syntax

2010-08-17 Thread Lars Wirzenius
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

Re: DEP-5: general file syntax

2010-08-17 Thread Craig Small
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

Re: DEP-5: general file syntax

2010-08-17 Thread Don Armstrong
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,