Hello, The policy is under GPL license which is kind of ridiculous to prevent citing Debian Policy in private talks. I imagine people discussing "those folks at Debian. Have you heard - they've changed you-know-what to make packaging easier". =)
Is there any license that more clearly states reason behind choosing the license? Seems like GPL in this case was chosen just because "everything is GPL". What about http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ ? It is compatible with DFSG http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses#CreativeCommonsAttributionShare-Alike.28CC-BY-SA.29v3.0 Ciao -- anatoly t. On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 6:03 AM, Scott Kitterman <deb...@kitterman.com> wrote: > I think we are at the point where the proposed update to the Python Policy is > clearly more relevant and better than what is currently published. Once this > is done, we can work on refinements. Loïc Minier (lool) did attempt to send > the proposed final patch set to the list and it has gotten stuck somewhere and > didn't make it to the list. > > Rather than wait to get that resolved, I'll point you at the git repository > Loïc mentioned earlier: > >> Pushed as git.debian.org:~lool/public_git/python-defaults.git if you >> want to use ssh with an alioth account, or >> git://git.debian.org/~lool/python-defaults.git otherwise > > The only other change I've made is to revert the first hunk of 0026-Clarify- > which-files-are-provided.patch. Once we hit a time where we are both awake, > I'll get git updated. > > I'm preparing an upload of python-defaults to publish this and unless I hear > screams will do it as soon as I can get the package assembled and the > maintainer's blessing (I have worked on this already and don't anticipate a > problem). > > Scott K > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
