Quoting Francesco Poli (2013-01-13 12:41:38)
On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 08:25:29 +0100 Reinhard Tartler wrote:
Especially as Jonas (and others) keep telling me that
debian/copyright is only about the source package.
They are indeed right, generally speaking.
But when the effective license of
Am 14.01.2013 12:07, schrieb Jonas Smedegaard:
I agree that debian/copyright is the best place to cover effective
licensing, but I disagree that we whould do it before it is defined as
the purpose of that file to cover *both* source and effective licensing.
But then, TTBOMK the effective
Quoting Fabian Greffrath (2013-01-14 13:41:08)
Am 14.01.2013 12:07, schrieb Jonas Smedegaard:
I agree that debian/copyright is the best place to cover effective
licensing, but I disagree that we whould do it before it is defined
as the purpose of that file to cover *both* source and
On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 08:25:29 +0100 Reinhard Tartler wrote:
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 11:26 PM, Francesco Poli
invernom...@paranoici.org wrote:
[...]
Without intimate knowledge of the libav package build process, I just
thought that those GPL-licensed files only ended up into the binary
[Thanks for your fast reply, and sorry for my late reply...]
On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 18:44:11 +0100 Reinhard Tartler wrote:
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 6:30 PM, Francesco Poli
invernom...@paranoici.org wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 09:55:12 +0100 Reinhard Tartler wrote:
[...]
Oh I'm sorry, I
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 11:26 PM, Francesco Poli
invernom...@paranoici.org wrote:
[Thanks for your fast reply, and sorry for my late reply...]
On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 18:44:11 +0100 Reinhard Tartler wrote:
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 6:30 PM, Francesco Poli
invernom...@paranoici.org wrote:
On
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Francesco Poli
invernom...@paranoici.org wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jan 2013 21:11:38 +0100 Reinhard Tartler wrote:
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 7:18 PM, Francesco Poli
[...]
Which license is the libavcodec-extra-* package released under?
LGPL-2.1+ or GPL-2+ ?
GPL-3+
On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 09:55:12 +0100 Reinhard Tartler wrote:
[...]
Oh I'm sorry, I mixed that up. There is no clear answer on that
because it depends. Most of the files are LGPL, but some hand-written
assembler optimizations are GPL-2+. The configure script offers an
--enable-gpl switch that
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 6:30 PM, Francesco Poli
invernom...@paranoici.org wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 09:55:12 +0100 Reinhard Tartler wrote:
[...]
Oh I'm sorry, I mixed that up. There is no clear answer on that
because it depends. Most of the files are LGPL, but some hand-written
assembler
On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 06:51:10 + Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
[...]
[ Jonas Smedegaard ]
* Rewrite copyright file using copyright format 1.0.
Closes: bug#694657. Thanks to Francesco Poli.
You're welcome, Jonas!
Thanks to you, indeed.
I have a question, though.
At the
Hi Francesco,
Quoting Francesco Poli (2013-01-09 19:18:02)
On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 06:51:10 + Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
[...]
[ Jonas Smedegaard ]
* Rewrite copyright file using copyright format 1.0.
Closes: bug#694657. Thanks to Francesco Poli.
You're welcome,
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 7:18 PM, Francesco Poli
invernom...@paranoici.org wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 06:51:10 + Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
[...]
[ Jonas Smedegaard ]
* Rewrite copyright file using copyright format 1.0.
Closes: bug#694657. Thanks to Francesco Poli.
On Wed, 9 Jan 2013 21:11:38 +0100 Reinhard Tartler wrote:
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 7:18 PM, Francesco Poli
[...]
Which license is the libavcodec-extra-* package released under?
LGPL-2.1+ or GPL-2+ ?
GPL-3+
GPL-3+ is the effective license of the binary package.
My question was which is the
On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 21:10:06 +0100 Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Hi Francesco,
Hi, thanks a lot for your very fast reply!
Quoting Francesco Poli (2013-01-09 19:18:02)
On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 06:51:10 + Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
[...]
[ Jonas Smedegaard ]
* Rewrite
On Wed, 9 Jan 2013 22:07:30 +0100 Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
The comment does clarifies this subtlety.
[...]
Obviously, this should have been
The comment does not clarify this subtlety.
Sorry about this brain/keyboard mismatch...
--
Quoting Francesco Poli (2013-01-09 22:08:58)
On Wed, 9 Jan 2013 21:11:38 +0100 Reinhard Tartler wrote:
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 7:18 PM, Francesco Poli
[...]
Which license is the libavcodec-extra-* package released under?
LGPL-2.1+ or GPL-2+ ?
GPL-3+
GPL-3+ is the effective
On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 22:53:48 +0100 Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
[...]
Maybe that is what you _now_ ask or what you _intended_ to ask earlier
on, but what you have inside quotation marks here right above is not
what you quote yourself as having said slightly further up.
Yeah, I should have been
Quoting Francesco Poli (2013-01-09 22:07:30)
On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 21:10:06 +0100 Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Quoting Francesco Poli (2013-01-09 19:18:02)
At the beginning of the new debian/copyright file, I read the following
comment:
| Comment:
| Because the libavcodec-extra-*
On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 23:27:44 +0100 Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Quoting Francesco Poli (2013-01-09 22:07:30)
[...]
Moreover, the comment states that Apache-2.0 is incompatible with
LGPL: I think this is incorrect and misleading.
Ah, yes - I agree there is a typo in the comment: s/LGPL/GPL-2/
19 matches
Mail list logo
