On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 05:45:21PM +1200, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
On to, 2010-08-12 at 22:28 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Lars Wirzenius l...@liw.fi writes:
On to, 2010-08-12 at 17:14 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
* An additional section with the same syntax as the Files section but
with
On su, 2010-08-15 at 01:32 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
That seems sensible to me. I think it will require some significant
restructuring of the text, to declare the License and Copyright fields in
advance of references to them in the discussion of the header stanza, so
maybe we should
Le Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 05:14:52PM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
* A comment field in the header section into which I can put statements
like:
All individual files with no other license statement are released
under this license. Some files have additional copyright dates from
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes:
similarly to Lars' proposition to recycle the License and Copyright
fields in the header, how about using the Disclaimer and Name fields for
your purposes?
Disclaimer:
All individual files with no other license statement are released
under this
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes:
Would a generic multi-line Comment: field be sufficient?
Yes.
Would an end-line comment syntax, like the one that already works in the
‘debian/control’ file, be sufficient?
If so, then we can avoid diverging from the existing formats in this
regard, and
Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au writes:
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes:
Would a generic multi-line Comment: field be sufficient?
Yes.
Would an end-line comment syntax, like the one that already works in the
‘debian/control’ file, be sufficient?
If so, then we can avoid
On pe, 2010-08-13 at 09:49 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
My opinion on this is that using # as a comment marker is already a
diversion from RFC 5322 and I was surprised that dpkg had support for it.
If we want this to be used outside of Debian, sticking strictly to the
syntax for RFC 5322 headers
As mentioned in the other thread, one goal for DEP-5 for me is to make the
format sufficiently rich to allow me to use it for the upstream LICENSE
file. Towards that end, I have three changes I'd like to have.
* An additional section with the same syntax as the Files section but with
no Files
On to, 2010-08-12 at 17:14 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
As mentioned in the other thread, one goal for DEP-5 for me is to make the
format sufficiently rich to allow me to use it for the upstream LICENSE
file. Towards that end, I have three changes I'd like to have.
Thanks, that's an interesting
Lars Wirzenius l...@liw.fi writes:
On to, 2010-08-12 at 17:14 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
* An additional section with the same syntax as the Files section but with
no Files field that would be used for documenting the copyright of the
distribution as a whole. (In US law, this is called a
On to, 2010-08-12 at 22:28 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Lars Wirzenius l...@liw.fi writes:
On to, 2010-08-12 at 17:14 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
* An additional section with the same syntax as the Files section but with
no Files field that would be used for documenting the copyright of
11 matches
Mail list logo
