> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> I've created licenses/HPND [1] now, and added it to the @OSI-APPROVED
> group. So packages whose license matches this template can be changed
> from as-is to HPND. (And please, _only_ OSD-compliant packages.
> We don't want the same mess again, as
Ulrich Mueller posted on Sat, 06 Oct 2012 16:14:57 +0200 as excerpted:
> Alternatively, we could introduce an own "metapackage" license label for
> these packages (suggested by Matija Šuklje to licenses@g.o) and add it
> to the appropriate license groups. Text would be as follows:
>
> ╓[ lice
Related issue: Many metapackages are marked "as-is". If they install
no files at all, then they should technically have the empty string
as LICENSE. Which is forbidden by repoman.
Alternatively, we could introduce an own "metapackage" license label
for these packages (suggested by Matija Šuklje to
On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 19:38:50 -0400
Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 5:21 PM, Ulrich Mueller
> wrote:
> The license isn't binary-only. The license is BSD. It just happens
> that the thing they're licensing is the binary and not the source.
>
> Does it really matter? Before we sta
On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 5:21 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Sat, 29 Sep 2012, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
>> If we start to measure the software freedom of the code inside the
>> package, then maybe LICENSE is the wrong variable to express this.
>
> I'm aware that we can't distinguish
> On Sat, 29 Sep 2012, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> I have one question: The license can be GPL-compatible but the
> software itself non-free. So binary-only packages distributed under
> e.g. BSD license should remain BSD or not?
Yes, if it's BSD licensed then it should have LICENSE=
Ulrich Mueller schrieb:
> I've created licenses/HPND [1] now, and added it to the @OSI-APPROVED
> group. So packages whose license matches this template can be changed
> from as-is to HPND. (And please, _only_ OSD-compliant packages.
> We don't want the same mess again, as we have with as-is.)
I h
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
>> I've created licenses/HPND [1] now, and added it to the @OSI-APPROVED
>> group. So packages whose license matches this template can be changed
>> from as-is to HPND. (And please, _only_ OSD-compliant packages.
>> We don't want the same mess a
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Alexandre Rostovtsev
wrote:
>
> If "as-is" will be removed from @GPL_COMPATIBLE, what gpl-compatible
> license should I use instead for such packages?
HPND as long as the license meets the description within the file. If
you've been applying the logic you stated
On Tue, 2012-09-25 at 13:04 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> I'll also remove as-is from @GPL-COMPATIBLE and @OSI-APPROVED again,
> as soon as all packages in the system set have been fixed (only
> net-misc/openssh and sys-apps/man-pages). It shouldn't have been added
> to these groups, in the first
On 25/09/2012 04:04, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> I've created licenses/HPND [1] now, and added it to the @OSI-APPROVED
> group. So packages whose license matches this template can be changed
> from as-is to HPND. (And please, _only_ OSD-compliant packages.
> We don't want the same mess again, as we hav
I've created licenses/HPND [1] now, and added it to the @OSI-APPROVED
group. So packages whose license matches this template can be changed
from as-is to HPND. (And please, _only_ OSD-compliant packages.
We don't want the same mess again, as we have with as-is.)
I'll also remove as-is from @GPL-CO
12 matches
Mail list logo
