Stefano Zacchiroli z...@debian.org writes:
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 09:36:21PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
- The GNU Free Documentation License is called GFDL in DEP5 and FDL
in SPDX. SPDX does not provide a name for the ‘no invariants’
exception.
Sounds like a good case where
On pe, 2010-12-31 at 10:38 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
Lars, can you point us to a rationale for that to-do item?
Er, sorry, I can't. I misread my notes (mixed up FDL with the .0 stuff).
I'll remove that from the wiki. Thanks for pointing it out, Ben.
--
Blog/wiki/website hosting with ikiwiki
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 02:04:43PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:26:22AM +, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
On ti, 2010-12-21 at 00:37 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
NB! These comments are based on the latest published rev. 135 draft.
If fixed in later drafts, I apologize
On ke, 2010-12-22 at 15:29 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
The canonical URL http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/ has been updated too
- but by hand, with a warning at the top that it might go stale.
Actually, I was quite happy with the way things were. The draft of DEP5
in svn was and is the
On ke, 2010-12-22 at 02:23 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 04:54:56PM +, Lars Wirzenius a écrit :
On ti, 2010-12-21 at 14:04 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
I don't have an opinion on whether MIT license is ambiguous or not, but
notice that it is still (in Bazaar
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 03:02:24PM +, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
On ke, 2010-12-22 at 15:29 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
The canonical URL http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/ has been updated
too - but by hand, with a warning at the top that it might go stale.
Actually, I was quite happy with
On ke, 2010-12-22 at 16:50 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
I respect your great work here, Lars, but disagree with your style.
If you disagree with my reasons for doing edits in bzr and not pushing
changes to svn all the time, you can argue those. You even have an
excellent chance of convincing
On ti, 2010-12-21 at 00:15 +0100, gregor herrmann wrote:
Or for one page that links to both:
http://www.perlfoundation.org/legal
Thanks, picked that one.
--
Blog/wiki/website hosting with ikiwiki (free for free software):
http://www.branchable.com/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On ti, 2010-12-21 at 00:37 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 09:43:53PM +, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
* SPDX has BSD 3 and 4 clause licenses with placeholders
= ignore: we'll just have many variants of BSD (called
other-FOO or whatever)
Related to this, there are
On ti, 2010-12-21 at 09:25 +1100, Craig Small wrote:
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 09:43:53PM +, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
* SPDX sometimes adds a license version, when we don't, or
adds a .0 to license version
= ignore? the difference should not matter much
= maybe suggest to SPDX they
Le Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 08:42:14PM +, Lars Wirzenius a écrit :
* yes, we (the DEP5 drivers) have communicated with Kate Stewart and the
SPDX people, though not very much yet; I don't have time to follow SPDX,
perhaps someone else would be interested in that task?
Hi Lars,
I have been
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:26:22AM +, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
On ti, 2010-12-21 at 00:37 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
The License shortname list includes an other name describes as
being any other custom license. Nowhere is it explicitly described
that other-FOO or FOO is allowed in
On ti, 2010-12-21 at 14:04 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:26:22AM +, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
On ti, 2010-12-21 at 00:37 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
The License shortname list includes an other name describes as
being any other custom license. Nowhere is it
Le Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 04:54:56PM +, Lars Wirzenius a écrit :
On ti, 2010-12-21 at 14:04 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
I don't have an opinion on whether MIT license is ambiguous or not, but
notice that it is still (in Bazaar repo as of today) not listed in the
Short name section,
Lars Wirzenius l...@liw.fi writes:
On ti, 2010-12-21 at 00:37 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Draft rev. 135 lists only Expat, but mentions MIT license as being
ambiguous. Is the ambifuity solved in newer revisions? Is Expat
preserved or replaced by MIT license?
I don't actually see the
I'll respond to several mails in this one.
* patch from Zack to fix broken example applied, thanks
* added SPDX section, since nobody objected to it; with gregoa's fix
* yes, we (the DEP5 drivers) have communicated with Kate Stewart and the
SPDX people, though not very much yet; I don't have
On to, 2010-12-16 at 17:04 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 04:30:08PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Uhm, this unfortunately is not the latest draft; Lars: can you
confirm that the diff produced by Charles still applies?
Do we even have any newer draft publicly
On to, 2010-12-16 at 14:08 +0100, gregor herrmann wrote:
* The link in For versions, consult the Perl Foundation doesn't
lead to the expected page.
Can you give a good link?
--
Blog/wiki/website hosting with ikiwiki (free for free software):
http://www.branchable.com/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
A summary of differences found by Charles and others, if I have
understood correctly, with comments.
* SPDX sometimes adds a license version, when we don't, or
adds a .0 to license version
= ignore? the difference should not matter much
= maybe suggest to SPDX they drop the .0
* SPDX does
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 09:43:53PM +, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
* SPDX sometimes adds a license version, when we don't, or
adds a .0 to license version
= ignore? the difference should not matter much
= maybe suggest to SPDX they drop the .0
I'd suggest that to SPDX but if they don't
On Mon, 20 Dec 2010 21:38:47 +, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
On to, 2010-12-16 at 14:08 +0100, gregor herrmann wrote:
* The link in For versions, consult the Perl Foundation doesn't
lead to the expected page.
Can you give a good link?
For the Artistic License:
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 09:43:53PM +, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
* SPDX has BSD 3 and 4 clause licenses with placeholders
= ignore: we'll just have many variants of BSD (called
other-FOO or whatever)
Related to this, there are few oddities regarding other licenses:
In Files section the
Le Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 07:54:06PM +, Lars Wirzenius a écrit :
* The list of license short names looks fine to me. I have not compared
the DEP5 list with SPDX or Fedora, or other projects, though. If someone
notices incompatibilities, we should fix that.
Dear Lars and everybody,
On Thu, 16 Dec 2010 21:36:21 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
For DEP5:
http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5
- SPDX does not contain the CC0, Expat, nor Perl licenses.
I thought the Perl license was removed already? TTBOMK there is no
such thing as a Perl license, the usual under the same terms as
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 07:54:06PM +, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
The remaining parts of DEP5 are all related to licenses. I propose the
following:
* Add a mention of and link to SPDX to the License specifications
chapter.
ACK.
Have you in the end contacted Kate Stewart (coordinating SPDX
[ quoted text reordered, for factorization purposes ]
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 09:36:21PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
I have compared the DEP5 and SPDX license short names:
Thanks a lot for this effort!
For DEP5: http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5
Uhm, this unfortunately is not the latest
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 04:01:51PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 09:36:21PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
For DEP5: http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5
Uhm, this unfortunately is not the latest draft; Lars: can you confirm
that the diff produced by Charles still
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 04:30:08PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Uhm, this unfortunately is not the latest draft; Lars: can you
confirm that the diff produced by Charles still applies?
Do we even have any newer draft publicly available?
...i.e. accessible not only by VCS but also web
Le Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 04:01:51PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit :
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 09:36:21PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
For DEP5: http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5
Uhm, this unfortunately is not the latest draft
Sorry for this, I had to jump in the train where I did the work,
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 01:19:38AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 04:01:51PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit :
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 09:36:21PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
some parts (year, copyright, organization) are substituted with
placeholders. This can
The remaining parts of DEP5 are all related to licenses. I propose the
following:
* Add a mention of and link to SPDX to the License specifications
chapter.
## SPDX
[SPDX](http://spdx.org/) is an attempt to standardize a format
for communicating the components,
On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 19:54:06 +, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
* Add a mention of and link to SPDX to the License specifications
chapter.
## SPDX
[SPDX](http://spdx.org/) is an attempt to standardize a format
for communicating the components, licenses and
32 matches
Mail list logo
