Ben Finney wrote:
>Sven Bartscher writes:
>> but its content is not very overwhelming:
>>
>> Copyright
>> BSD license
...
>> I think this isn't sufficient to include the package in Debian. Is
>> this right?
I think it's
Greetings,
I was recently starting to package a Haskell library, but noticed that
the upstream package contains a LICENSE file, but its content is not
very overwhelming:
Copyright
BSD license
(just to be clear: The actual author and year were in that file, but I
removed the from this
On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 22:58:24 +0100
Sven Bartscher wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 08:22:09 +1100
> Riley Baird wrote:
>
> > > I think this isn't sufficient to include the package in Debian. Is this
> > >
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 14:51:14 +0900
Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 11:00:14PM +, Ian Jackson a écrit :
> >
> > The file `pqueue.cabal' (which the git records also show was written
> > by the author and copyrightholder) clearly specifies `BSD3'.
>
>
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 08:22:09 +1100
Riley Baird wrote:
> > I think this isn't sufficient to include the package in Debian. Is this
> > right?
>
> It's impossible to tell if we can't see the package ourselves.
The package in question is
Riley Baird writes ("Re: Missing license text in upstream packages"):
> Generally, it would be okay just to state the license name. However,
> because of the wide variety of BSD licenses out there, I worry that
> there might be multiple 3 clause BSD licenses and it's unclear
Sven Bartscher writes:
> I was recently starting to package a Haskell library, but noticed that
> the upstream package contains a LICENSE file
Thank you for taking care to ensure the freedom of Debian recipients.
> but its content is not very overwhelming:
Le Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 11:00:14PM +, Ian Jackson a écrit :
>
> The file `pqueue.cabal' (which the git records also show was written
> by the author and copyrightholder) clearly specifies `BSD3'.
Thanks Ian.
On top of this, Haskell packages in the Hackage repository are required to be
open
> I think this isn't sufficient to include the package in Debian. Is this
> right?
It's impossible to tell if we can't see the package ourselves.
pgpyHMRf6zWY6.pgp
Description: PGP signature
9 matches
Mail list logo