Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2017 at 10:08 AM From: [email protected] > > On Tue, 2017-08-01 at 21:41 +0200, Luigi Baldoni wrote: > > No. I was talking about the copyring attribution for the spec file > > itself, with which I seem to recall > > from a previous interaction OP has a problem with. > > > > Now, I assume that a commercial entity like SUSE can't afford to > > distribute anything where the IP is not > > clearly defined, even for a mere script. > > > > Would Packman be more lenient in that regard? > > As Richard explained, this might be a bit dangerous adventure for > packman. Apart from that I would say that motivation for moving to > packman is a bit weak - my understanding is that move is motivated by > hurt feelings after discussion about copyright attribution with OP, and > by his opposition against including hamradio/sdr stuff in Factory and > Leap.
Before slandering anyone, now I see that packages in home:dl8fcl:hamradio have the following header: # # spec file for package foo # # Copyright (c) 2017 Walter Fey DL8FCL # # This file is under MIT license Is this the reeason why OBS doesn't want it? Would packman? Can Walter Fey confirm this? > This would basically go against most of recent efforts to move > everything that is possible/allowed to OBS/Leap/Factory and would put > additional load on packman's resources, which are much more scarce than > those of OBS. And on that I fully agree. It seems to me trying to find a modus vivendi with OBS would be a much fruitful employment of everyone's time:) Regards _______________________________________________ Packman mailing list [email protected] http://lists.links2linux.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/packman
