Le vendredi, 17 jan 2003, à 16:37 Europe/Paris, David R. Morrison a
écrit :
In a discussion on #fink today, we arrived at the following plan. A
non-opensource license would either be labeled
License: Restrictive
(as done currently), or
License: Restrictive/Distributable
The second one w
In a discussion on #fink today, we arrived at the following plan. A
non-opensource license would either be labeled
License: Restrictive
(as done currently), or
License: Restrictive/Distributable
The second one would be used when it is OK for Fink to distribute a binary,
even though the lic
On Thursday, January 16, 2003, at 12:00 PM, Max Horn wrote:
Hrm, right as well. So why not split the Restrictive license class
into two:
Restrictive
RestrictiveButDistributable
(well, obviously with better names). That would seem more logical to
me than a seperate field.
Sounds good to me
OK, suppose we just introduce the license category "Distributible", and in
the docs explain that Distributible covers non-open source licenses which
allow Fink to distribute binaries.
-- Dave
---
This SF.NET email is sponsored by: Thawte.com
At 14:33 Uhr -0500 16.01.2003, David R. Morrison wrote:
Hi Max.
I've just gone through this process of figuring out which things to put
on the exclude list for the third time. It is really painful, with the
current tools.
Yes, but that "just" means the tools have to become better. They
would
Hi Max.
I've just gone through this process of figuring out which things to put
on the exclude list for the third time. It is really painful, with the
current tools.
The maker of the bindist doesn't check each individual package to make sure
that the license was correctly assigned, right? We le
At 10:36 Uhr -0500 16.01.2003, David R. Morrison wrote:
With an eye towards constructing an automated build system for the binary
distribution one of these days, I'd like to propose a new field for fink
.info files:
BinaryDistribution: True/False or Yes/No
This field would only be consulted if t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
"David R. Morrison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> With an eye towards constructing an automated build system for the binary
> distribution one of these days, I'd like to propose a new field for fink
> .info files:
>
> BinaryDistribution: True/False or
On Donnerstag, Januar 16, 2003, at 04:36 Uhr, David R. Morrison wrote:
BinaryDistribution: True/False or Yes/No
Sounds good. I would go for True/False and default to False.
This field would only be consulted if the package is labeled
License: Restrictive
and in that case, it would indicate
With an eye towards constructing an automated build system for the binary
distribution one of these days, I'd like to propose a new field for fink
.info files:
BinaryDistribution: True/False or Yes/No
This field would only be consulted if the package is labeled
License: Restrictive
and in that
10 matches
Mail list logo
