Quoting Reinhard Tartler (2013-01-16 07:27:25)
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 1:20 AM, Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk wrote:
I'll setup a mechanism to have libav extend the copyright file for
each binary packages, adding to header section a reasoned effective
license.
...and will start
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Le 14/01/2013 23:45, Francesco Poli a écrit :
On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 11:13:48 +0100 Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Quoting Charles Plessy (2013-01-14 02:55:38)
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 11:43 PM, Francesco Poli (wintermute)
I think that the effective
Quoting Thibaut Paumard (2013-01-14 23:29:40)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Le 14/01/2013 23:45, Francesco Poli a écrit :
On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 11:13:48 +0100 Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Quoting Charles Plessy (2013-01-14 02:55:38)
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 11:43 PM,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Le 15/01/2013 14:41, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit :
Quoting Thibaut Paumard (2013-01-14 23:29:40)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256
Le 14/01/2013 23:45, Francesco Poli a écrit :
On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 11:13:48 +0100 Jonas Smedegaard
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 02:41:07PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
the current defined purpose of the copyright file apparently is only to
cover copyrights and licensing or _source_.
That's not true. The purpose of the copyright file has *always* been to
ensure that the license for a given
Quoting Steve Langasek (2013-01-15 20:59:35)
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 02:41:07PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
the current defined purpose of the copyright file apparently is only
to cover copyrights and licensing or _source_.
That's not true. The purpose of the copyright file has
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 1:20 AM, Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk wrote:
I'll setup a mechanism to have libav extend the copyright file for each
binary packages, adding to header section a reasoned effective license.
...and will start do similar for all the other packages that I am
involved
Quoting Charles Plessy (2013-01-14 02:55:38)
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 11:43 PM, Francesco Poli (wintermute)
I think that the effective licensing status of the binary packages
(GPL-2+ or GPL-3+) should be explicitly and clearly documented in
the comment at the beginning of the
On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 11:13:48 +0100 Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Quoting Charles Plessy (2013-01-14 02:55:38)
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 11:43 PM, Francesco Poli (wintermute)
I think that the effective licensing status of the binary packages
(GPL-2+ or GPL-3+) should be explicitly and
tags 698019 help
stop
Copying debian-legal and netgen mostly for notifying them about this
issue. Also, see the call for help below.
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 11:43 PM, Francesco Poli (wintermute)
invernom...@paranoici.org wrote:
Source: libav
Version: 6:9.1-1
Severity: important
Hello again,
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 11:43 PM, Francesco Poli (wintermute)
I think that the effective licensing status of the binary packages
(GPL-2+ or GPL-3+) should be explicitly and clearly documented in the
comment at the beginning of the debian/copyright file and, probably, in
the binary
Source: libav
Version: 6:9.1-1
Severity: important
Hello again,
while trying to improve [1] a comment at the beginning of the
debian/copyright file, it became apparent [2] that all the binary
packages built from libav are effectively under GPL-2+ or even
under GPL-3+ (as for libavcodec-extra-*,
12 matches
Mail list logo
