Re: Bug#698019: libav: the effective GPL-licensed status of the binary packages should be clearly documented

2013-01-15 Thread Thibaut Paumard
-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

Re: Bug#698019: libav: the effective GPL-licensed status of the binary packages should be clearly documented

2013-01-15 Thread Jonas Smedegaard
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,

Re: Bug#698019: libav: the effective GPL-licensed status of the binary packages should be clearly documented

2013-01-15 Thread Thibaut Paumard
-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

Re: Bug#698019: libav: the effective GPL-licensed status of the binary packages should be clearly documented

2013-01-15 Thread Steve Langasek
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

Re: Bug#698019: libav: the effective GPL-licensed status of the binary packages should be clearly documented

2013-01-15 Thread Jonas Smedegaard
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

Re: Bug#698019: libav: the effective GPL-licensed status of the binary packages should be clearly documented

2013-01-15 Thread Reinhard Tartler
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