Re: Source files

> Charles Plessy <ple...@debian.org> writes: > > > > Maybe the long line was machine-generated at the beginning, but it does not > > matter anymore. Le Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 10:12:07AM +0200, Ole Streicher a écrit : > > Why not? If I take the GPL defini

Re: Is possible relicense from GPL to BSD?

the OSI website, the 4-clause BSD is not there. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan

Re: debian status on using the PHP license for pear/pecl extensions

:07PM +0100, Ferenc Kovacs a écrit : > > any progress on this? > I starting to feel lonely here. Hi Ferenc, happy new year ! ... you are not alone :) don't give up ! Sometimes things are not quick in Debian ... Cheers, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan

Re: Status of US Government Works in foreign countries

uot;a trap". Do you have concrete examples of cases where people fell in that trap and got hurt since then ? Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan

Re: C-FSL: a new license for software from elstel.org

r, I just wanted to add to the advice of not writing new licenses, that part of the problem that you are trying to address can be solved by requiring a contributor agreement before merging contributions into your software's main line. See for instance <https://owncloud.org/contribute/agreement/>. Ha

Re: ad hoc license: is it DFSG-conformant ?

eneral, frequently used and well-understood license Have a nice week-end, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan

Re: Missing license text in upstream packages

the state of pqueue is very clear. Of course, a pull request to brush up the LICENCE file might be appreciated by the author(s) anyway. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan

Re: R packages licensed MIT but not shipping a copy of the MIT license itself

nice day, Charles -- Charles Plessy Debian Med packaging team, http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan

Re: Are there any stats of reasons given for rejections of package to the Package archive ?

Hi Shirish, in complement to Paul's answer, I would like to mention the peer-review process that I outlined in the Debian wiki: <https://wiki.debian.org/CopyrightReview>. While it never got traction, you are free to try it if you like. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Debian Med pac

Re: Inclusion of PDF with CC Attr 3.0 license

er share their build system and then integrate them in their sofware package. So my personal point of view is that shipping the PDF in the source package is harmless, shipping it in a binary package is close to useless, and we should let the package maintainer chose the solution that he finds most suita

Re: Can "rockyou" wordlist be packaged in Debian?

> Eriberto Mota writes: > > > However, I will wait more opinions before submit a package to Debian. Le Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:33:02AM +1000, Ben Finney a écrit : > > Don't (only) wait for them here. I would advise you to ask the people > distributing the work what they

Re: Freeware Public License (FPL)

Le Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 11:21:37AM +1100, Ben Finney a écrit : > Ian Jackson writes: > > > I'm afraid you'll have to go back to the authors/copyrightholders and > > get them to fix the licence for this particular program. > > Preferably, convince the copyright

Re: BSD license + should

but I think that I have seen similar cases where it was. Have a nice day, Charles -- Charles Plessy Debian Med packaging team, http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Akano, Uruma, Okinawa, Japan

Re: Another 2-clause BSD or a mistake?

Le Sat, Mar 16, 2024 at 10:40:16PM -0700, Soren Stoutner a écrit : > License: BSD-custom-2-clause I would recommend a different abbreviation. BSD-custom-2-clause may give the false impression that this is a standard BSD 2-clause license where the copyright holders are not the regents of the

<    1   2