On 03/22/2009 05:18 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
Heh, actually rpm has had %license special file attribute since rpm
2.5.4, it just doesn't really do much anything at all. It also doesn't
play well together with %doc, AND since the ancient copyright - license
tag change, %license as file
Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 04:58:11AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Tom spot Callaway wrote:
Now, if there were a clever way to handle this behind the scenes so that
these license files were not duplicated if they were identical, but
instead, symlinked to the license files in
On Mon, 23 Mar 2009, Tom \spot\ Callaway wrote:
On 03/22/2009 05:18 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
Heh, actually rpm has had %license special file attribute since rpm
2.5.4, it just doesn't really do much anything at all. It also doesn't
play well together with %doc, AND since the ancient
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 10:07:30AM +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
Basically, have rpm -V ignore timestamp verification on %license files.
Make that have rpm -V ignore timestamp verification on files whose
hardlink count is 1. That's reasonably in line with how rpm -V
currently treats
Kevin Kofler wrote:
Simon Schampijer wrote:
So, the point to ship a license per package is fine. I actually did not
want to relax that. I had the technical problem to need to access the
license field to be able to display it in a dialog inside Sugar.
Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 10:07:30AM +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
Basically, have rpm -V ignore timestamp verification on %license files.
Make that have rpm -V ignore timestamp verification on files whose
hardlink count is 1. That's reasonably in line with how rpm -V
On Tuesday 24 March 2009 10:26:23 Panu Matilainen wrote:
Hmm okay, any user being able to modivy rpm -V behavior is not exactly
good, although timestamp verify is pretty feeble business (considering rpm
doesnt raise conflicts on timestamp differences).
If it's shared, then it should at least
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009, Tom \spot\ Callaway wrote:
On 03/20/2009 04:06 PM, Lyos Gemini Norezel wrote:
Pity. A %license (ie., like the %doc) field would be nice to have.
Indeed. This is where I think the most interesting work needs to be
done. Once rpm knows that a %license file is a special
Tom spot Callaway wrote:
Now, if there were a clever way to handle this behind the scenes so that
these license files were not duplicated if they were identical, but
instead, symlinked to the license files in a generic license rpm, I
might be more interested. (If they weren't bit for bit
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 04:58:11AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Tom spot Callaway wrote:
Now, if there were a clever way to handle this behind the scenes so that
these license files were not duplicated if they were identical, but
instead, symlinked to the license files in a generic license
On 03/20/2009 03:38 PM, Lyos Gemini Norezel wrote:
Isn't it possible to figure that out with a bit of bash programming?
Eg., use the 'comm' command.
comm Compare two sorted files line by line
and, if different, a diff could be generated to show you exactly what's
different.
Doesn't
Tom spot Callaway wrote:
On 03/20/2009 03:38 PM, Lyos Gemini Norezel wrote:
Isn't it possible to figure that out with a bit of bash programming?
Eg., use the 'comm' command.
comm Compare two sorted files line by line
and, if different, a diff could be generated to show you exactly
Tom spot Callaway wrote:
On 03/18/2009 03:45 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Simon Schampijer wrote:
Yes. So the main question is now if Fedora would be willing to ship
general licenses under /usr/share/common-licenses, I think.
I really don't want to do this. Here's why:
A) Many copyright
Bernie Innocenti wrote:
[cc += fedora-de...@]
Sorry to reply late on this.
Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
quote who=Simon Schampijer date=Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 01:06:19PM +0100
we did show a full license in the Control Panel before. The path was
hard coded to where OLPC had placed the GPL license.
Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
quote who=Simon Schampijer date=Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 10:59:53AM +0100
Yeah. Looks like Mandriva has /usr/share/common-licenses and per
packages COPYING files. But the ones in /usr/share/common-licenses are
named differently then those in Debian (GPL-2 not GPLv2).
quote who=Simon Schampijer date=Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 10:59:53AM +0100
Yeah. Looks like Mandriva has /usr/share/common-licenses and per
packages COPYING files. But the ones in /usr/share/common-licenses are
named differently then those in Debian (GPL-2 not GPLv2).
Nothing that symlinks
Simon Schampijer wrote:
Yes. So the main question is now if Fedora would be willing to ship
general licenses under /usr/share/common-licenses, I think.
FWIW, I don't think it's legal to do that, licenses need to accompany the
package.
But in any case what really matters is whether RH Legal
On 03/18/2009 03:45 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Simon Schampijer wrote:
Yes. So the main question is now if Fedora would be willing to ship
general licenses under /usr/share/common-licenses, I think.
I really don't want to do this. Here's why:
A) Many copyright holders make minor modifications to
On Wed, 2009-03-18 at 16:00 -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
On 03/18/2009 03:45 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Simon Schampijer wrote:
Yes. So the main question is now if Fedora would be willing to ship
general licenses under /usr/share/common-licenses, I think.
I really don't want to do this.
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 4:44 PM, David Malcolm dmalc...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, 2009-03-18 at 16:00 -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
On 03/18/2009 03:45 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Simon Schampijer wrote:
Yes. So the main question is now if Fedora would be willing to ship
general licenses
Questions like these are bread and butter for the SFC.
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 10:24 PM, Walter Bender walter.ben...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 4:44 PM, David Malcolm dmalc...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, 2009-03-18 at 16:00 -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
On 03/18/2009 03:45 PM,
Elena of Valhalla wrote:
no, GPL doesn't[1], a pointer is enough, but GNU FDL does
[1] You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
along with this program. If not, see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/.
Not true, that sentence is there to cope with projects which don't
As long as it can be overridden (and I presume it could be.) I have a
problem in SynPhony of having many contributers to the database content that
are stored along with license details in a table within the database.
Static info in the software packaging is insufficient.
2009/2/28 Bernie
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 01:52:49AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Caius kaio Chance wrote:
GPL requires attachment of COPYING?
Yes.
I believe the way Debian handles this is by interpreting the
distribution as a whole as being shipped as one.
-
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bernie Innocenti さんは書きました:
Seems like a great idea to me... But I think it already came up some
time ago, and I vaguely remember that RH legal blocked it because the
license itself -- not just a symlink to it -- had to accompany the
package.
GPL
quote who=Bernie Innocenti date=Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 12:53:34AM +0100
Seems like a great idea to me... But I think it already came up some
time ago, and I vaguely remember that RH legal blocked it because the
license itself -- not just a symlink to it -- had to accompany the
package.
Well,
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 1:52 AM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Caius kaio Chance wrote:
GPL requires attachment of COPYING?
Yes.
no, GPL doesn't[1], a pointer is enough, but GNU FDL does
[1] You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
along with this
Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
I suggest a palette attached to a button in the toolbar to show this
info, or a modal alert similar to the object chooser.
A long time ago, someone at OLPC (was it Eben?) suggested adding an
About menu item to the Stop button in the activity toolbar.
Sugar-toolkit could
I liked Wade's suggestion of making it part of help, as it is in other
desktops. (help-about) Of course this presumes that the great help debate
results in a help button/thingy!! (My challenged GUI nomenclature is one
more piece of evidence as to why I don't build GUIs for a living.)
On Sat,
Hi,
we did show a full license in the Control Panel before. The path was
hard coded to where OLPC had placed the GPL license. What can we do to
meet the expectations of all the distributions that want to ship sugar?
Thanks for inputs on this,
Simon
http://dev.sugarlabs.org/ticket/357
This brings up an issue I have been thinking about, since the SynPhony
database comprises several with attribution components. Would it make
sense to have a common design element that was about activity or
credits that would allow contributions to be acknowledged? Leaving aside
whether it is a
Agreed that an about this activity (credits, license, etc) UI element
should be standard.
This should be part of a ubiquitous help button, which would become part of
the standard activity toolbar. When clicked, it opens a localized .html
file from within the activity bundle. It could open in
32 matches
Mail list logo
