On Wed, 2017-08-02 at 10:25 +0200, Luigi Baldoni wrote: > Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2017 at 10:08 AM > From: mar...@pluskal.org > > > > 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? This state is afaik absolutely OK for OBS/openSUSE distribution.
Cheers Martin
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Packman mailing list Packman@links2linux.de http://lists.links2linux.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/packman
