On Wed, 2023-09-27 at 10:41 -0400, John Thorvald Wodder II wrote:
> So was this problem previously known but under-acknowledged, or was it simply
> not brought up before now? I find it surprising that Debian would allow so
> many license violations to get this far. Is fixing the tooling to
On Wed, 2023-09-27 at 11:03 -0400, John Thorvald Wodder II wrote:
> On further inspection, it turns out that bat itself compiles the text
> of its NOTICE file into the binary, and the text is displayed when
> running `batcat --acknowledgements`, so bat's Apache 2.0 license is
> being followed.
* On 9/27/23 21:10, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> "Mihai" == Mihai Moldovan writes:
>
> Mihai> In this case, we're "just" talking about missing notices for
> Mihai> dependencies that are pulled in, which might not be nice, but
> Mihai> also, realistically, nobody would really care about
> "Mihai" == Mihai Moldovan writes:
Mihai> In this case, we're "just" talking about missing notices for
Mihai> dependencies that are pulled in, which might not be nice, but
Mihai> also, realistically, nobody would really care about or try to
Mihai> enforce it (unless somebody
* On 9/27/23 16:41, John Thorvald Wodder II wrote:
> On 2023 Sep 26, at 20:36, Paul Wise wrote:
>> Your analysis is correct, some extra context for this problem:
>>
>> The problem you have identified applies to other statically linked
>> languages too, so I have updated the wiki page to link to
On 2023 Sep 26, at 22:09, Paul Wise wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2023-09-26 at 14:20 -0400, John Thorvald Wodder II wrote:
>
>> - bat (In addition to the type of problem discussed above, the source code
>> for
>> bat has an Apache 2.0 `NOTICE` file, yet this is not included in the .deb
>> package.)
On 2023 Sep 26, at 20:36, Paul Wise wrote:
> Your analysis is correct, some extra context for this problem:
>
> The problem you have identified applies to other statically linked
> languages too, so I have updated the wiki page to link to it.
>
> https://wiki.debian.org/StaticLinking
So was
On Wed, 2023-09-27 at 05:24 +, Stephan Verbücheln wrote:
> Are the upstream developers not already legally required to include all
> this information into various places including their “Help-About” menu?
It is definitely not common practice to document the copyright/license
info of
8 matches
Mail list logo
