On 2014-12-23, 21:06 GMT, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
Upstream had a few files that had the old address. I've
noticed the GPLv3 doesn't have an address in it's notice. Is
it sufficient to instruct upstream to just remove the address
for GPLv2. Not that they're going to move again, but seems to
On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 2:53 AM, Matěj Cepl mc...@cepl.eu wrote:
However, I don't think that the “How to use GNU license for your
own software” has any contractual significance whatsoever in
using, so I don’t see anything bad in upgrading even the
instructions for GPLv2 to the Internet age
Matěj Cepl wrote:
You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public
License along with Foobar. If not, see
https://gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.txt.
I just use the standard GPLv3+ template for my new GPLv2+ projects (with
only the version changed to 2), including
I'm getting an incorrect FSF address when I'm building a package.
I checked here:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#incorrect-fsf-address
and built the package with the recommended file. Still get the error.
I checked the address with FSF, and what is in the COPYING file
On 2014-12-23 20:28, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
I'm getting an incorrect FSF address when I'm building a package.
I checked here:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#incorrect-fsf-address
and built the package with the recommended file. Still get the error.
I checked the address
On Tue, 2014-12-23 at 11:28 -0800, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
Am I missing something here?
What package are you building, and what is the output from rpmlint? That
would help. It should point you to a specific file that it has flagged
as containing the outdated postal address.
(Be aware that this
On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com wrote:
The check is not only applied to COPYING but also to the license text in
source files. Have you checked those?
Got it. Thanks!
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Upstream had a few files that had the old address. I've noticed the GPLv3
doesn't have an address in it's notice. Is it sufficient to instruct
upstream
to just remove the address for GPLv2. Not that they're going to move
again, but seems to be alot of work for everybody if the address is
On 23/12/14 21:55, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com
mailto:leamas.a...@gmail.com wrote:
The check is not only applied to COPYING but also to the license
text in source files. Have you checked those?
Got it. Thanks!
You're
On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com wrote:
BTW, in many cases I been able to fix these problems by sending patches
rather than just complaints upstream. Basically, I think we (i. e. Fedora)
are the which are concerned about this, and in that situation we are the
10 matches
Mail list logo
