Joey Hess writes:
> In the above example, doc/* are not copyright by Mr. Foo. But if if
> Mr. Foo has done work that allows him to assert a compilation
> copyright, that could apply to the whole package, including doc/*. So,
> Mr. Foo could be listed in the Copyright in the header.
Okay. I am no
Ben Finney wrote:
> The explanation in the DEP doesn't really make it clear why this is
> needed, as opposed to an initial “Files: *” paragraph with the “package
> as a whole” copyright and license values.
>
> Where is the rationale for having Copyright apply in the header?
Files: *
Copyright: Fo
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 01:14:10PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Dear all,
polishing is geting hectic, but I think that we are going in the good
direction…
Le Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 02:35:17AM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit :
Format: http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/dep/web/deps/dep5.mdwn?rev=162
U
Ben Finney writes:
> Charles Plessy writes:
>> I am worried that there was a misundertanding about the purpose of the
>> first paragraph's Copyright field: from my reading of the current
>> version of the DEP (and independantly of how my opinion on how it
>> should be)
> The explanation in the
Charles Plessy writes:
> About having a License field in the header: on one hand I have not
> seen opposition to this, but on the other hand, it is not allowed by
> the current candidate draft, which lists License only in the fields of
> the Files paragraph.
That's a good point. It does seem tha
Dear all,
polishing is geting hectic, but I think that we are going in the good direction…
Le Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 02:35:17AM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit :
>
> Format: http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/dep/web/deps/dep5.mdwn?rev=162
> Upstream-Name: Bitcoin
> Upstream-Contact: Satoshi Nakamoto
> S
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 09:23:45AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 12:56:17AM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit :
I do not, however, agree with sneaking in additional requirements in
that field:
>+ which is mainly the case for native Debian packages. If the upstream
>+
Jonas Smedegaard writes:
> I notice that you also add explicit requirement of documenting removal
> of source in the Source: field.
No. Like Charles Plessy, I merely preserved the existing sentence, since
changing it was out of scope for the patch.
--
\ “I knew things were changing when
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 11:15:12AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
Ben Finney writes:
I maintain the position I argued earlier in this same thread:
The provenance of the source of any Debian package should be recorded
explicitly, and the copyright file is the canonical location for that
informatio
Ben Finney writes:
> Keeping this field optional makes the provenance of the source more
s/optional/required/
> likely to be clear. It is minimal effort to support that aim (if the
> package is native to Debian, just say so explicitly in this field).
--
\ “Nothing is
Le Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 12:56:17AM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit :
>
> I do not, however, agree with sneaking in additional requirements in
> that field:
>
> >+ which is mainly the case for native Debian packages. If the upstream
> >+ source has been modified to remove non-free parts, t
Ben Finney writes:
> I maintain the position I argued earlier in this same thread:
>
> The provenance of the source of any Debian package should be recorded
> explicitly, and the copyright file is the canonical location for that
> information. For packages where “it was only ever a Debian native
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 07:44:03AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 01:18:20PM -0800, Steve Langasek a écrit :
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 10:14:03AM +0100, Dominique Dumont wrote:
> From a parser point of view, this requirement cannot be verified
> unless there's a way to know
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 08:00:27AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 03:31:38PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit :
It seems to me that the third patch has been applied by now, although
the referenced SPDX web pages for BSD licenses are empty.
Was that deliberate? I feel th
Le Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 03:31:38PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit :
>
> It seems to me that the third patch has been applied by now,
> although the referenced SPDX web pages for BSD licenses are empty.
>
> Was that deliberate? I feel that it makes the current draft not
> appropriate for widespr
> > Le Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 09:09:09PM +0200, Lars Wirzenius a écrit :
> > >
> > > I think I agree with your proposal to link to SPDX. Alternatively, we
> > > could collect the licenses as attachments to the spec, or point at the
> > > ones on the OSI site. I'd rather avoid attaching things, but o
Le Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 01:18:20PM -0800, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 10:14:03AM +0100, Dominique Dumont wrote:
>
> > From a parser point of view, this requirement cannot be verified unless
> > there's a way to know if a package is native or not.
>
> True, but unavoidable.
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 10:14:03AM +0100, Dominique Dumont wrote:
> On Saturday 15 January 2011 14:03:39 Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> > I went with the patch below. Thanks Zack, Charles, Andrei.
> > Index: dep5.mdwn
> > ===
> > --- dep5.md
On Saturday 15 January 2011 14:03:39 Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> I went with the patch below. Thanks Zack, Charles, Andrei.
>
> Index: dep5.mdwn
> ===
> --- dep5.mdwn (revision 161)
> +++ dep5.mdwn (working copy)
> @@ -149,12 +149,17
19 matches
Mail list logo
