Re: Luca Capello 2006-03-28 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Just to be sure, is the following enough for the BSD license?
This software is licensed under the terms of the BSD license,
which can be found on Debian systems in the file
/usr/share/common-licenses/BSD or from
Hello!
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 17:06:05 +0200, Christoph Berg wrote:
Re: Luca Capello 2006-03-28 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Just to be sure, is the following enough for the BSD license?
[...]
The license was modified to reflect that $AUTHOR, not the Regents
of the University of California, is the
Re: Luca Capello 2006-03-28 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please correct me if I'm wrong :-)
That's what I intended to say, sorry if I made the impression of
contradicting you. The point was that some people new to packaging
seem to think that they don't have to include the full license, and if
the license
Luca Capello [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[Debian Policy Manual]
12.5 Copyright information
Every package must be accompanied by a verbatim copy of its copyright
and distribution license in the file
/usr/share/doc/package/copyright. This file must neither be compressed
nor be a symbolic
On Sun, 2006-03-26 at 21:20 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Charles Plessy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am packaging a program for debian, and wrote a manpage and two patches
for making it compile with libwxwindows. I am not very interested in
being the author list: I would be a bit ashamed
Scripsit Christoph Berg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Raphael Hertzog 2006-03-26 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Each package with translations has several dozens of copyright holder,
we don't have to keep that list in the copyright file, do we ?
And we ignore any (C) FSF in generated autofoo stuff.
The
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006, Henning Makholm wrote:
And we ignore any (C) FSF in generated autofoo stuff.
The generated autofoo stuff does not end up in the .deb, so the
copyright file needs not describe it.
It often ends up in the source package (depending when you run the
autotools), which we do
Scripsit Henrique de Moraes Holschuh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006, Henning Makholm wrote:
And we ignore any (C) FSF in generated autofoo stuff.
The generated autofoo stuff does not end up in the .deb, so the
copyright file needs not describe it.
It often ends up in the source
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scripsit Henrique de Moraes Holschuh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006, Henning Makholm wrote:
And we ignore any (C) FSF in generated autofoo stuff.
The generated autofoo stuff does not end up in the .deb, so the
copyright file needs not
On 10605 March 1977, Florian Weimer wrote:
As *many* rejects out of the NEW-Queue[2] are still due to broken or
incomplete copyright-files - lets refresh that information.
Just for clarification, since there seems to be this increased
interest in copyright notices: Do developers need to
On 10606 March 1977, Henning Makholm wrote:
But is the Debian copyright file supposed to describe the source
package? Not according to my understanding; the source package already
includes the various upstream copyright messages in their original
positions.
We distribute the source, and the
On 10606 March 1977, Charles Plessy wrote:
I am packaging a program for debian, and wrote a manpage and two patches
for making it compile with libwxwindows. I am not very interested in
being the author list: I would be a bit ashamed that my name would
appear more frequently that the author's
Hello!
On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 20:29:48 +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Some extra hints:
- Its not enough to have the following two-liner:
| On Debian systems, the complete text of the GNU General Public
| License can be found in the `/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL'
| file.
There are
* Joerg Jaspert:
As *many* rejects out of the NEW-Queue[2] are still due to broken or
incomplete copyright-files - lets refresh that information.
Just for clarification, since there seems to be this increased
interest in copyright notices: Do developers need to verify that these
copyright
On Sun, 26 Mar 2006, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
In many packages there is more than one author, more than one
copyright-holder and more than one license. Do not miss to list them
all, even if that other license is just for one file. Yes, any single
file is important.
Each package with translations
Re: Raphael Hertzog 2006-03-26 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Each package with translations has several dozens of copyright holder,
we don't have to keep that list in the copyright file, do we ?
And we ignore any (C) FSF in generated autofoo stuff.
Christoph
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.df7cb.de/
On Sun, Mar 26, 2006 at 08:29:48PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote :
In many packages there is more than one author, more than one
copyright-holder and more than one license. Do not miss to list them
all, even if that other license is just for one file. Yes, any single
file is important.
Dear
Charles Plessy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am packaging a program for debian, and wrote a manpage and two patches
for making it compile with libwxwindows. I am not very interested in
being the author list: I would be a bit ashamed that my name would
appear more frequently that the author's
18 matches
Mail list logo
