On 7 June 2011 17:54, James Westby <james.wes...@linaro.org> wrote: > On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 20:29:38 -0500, Kate Stewart <kate.stew...@canonical.com> > wrote: >> This is a format that can go outside the packages (as well as in), so >> can be used without marshalling the entire Debian community to adopt it. >> So, am not advocating it be pushed by Linaro engineering for adoption >> inside Debian packages. Just be considered for use when describing the >> licensing and copyrights of what you're providing, rather than come up >> with yet another version... ;) > > Right. The trigger of this discussion wasn't about describing the > licensing and copyrights of what we are providing. > > Given that I don't think it's going to work for our use case, given that > we have to specify the license details of every file we are shipping > (files here will be .deb packages), just in order so say
Perhaps Kate can chime in. I think you just have to specify the license as a whole. > this is based on 03E520A of > git://git.linaro.org/jcrigby/linux-linaro-natty.git > > I certainly think that it's a good idea to consider it if we do wish to > describe the licenses of the files we are providing in a > machine-readable manner. > > Thanks, > > James > _______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
