Re: [Fink-devel] new field in .info files
In a discussion on #fink today, we arrived at the following plan. A non-opensource license would either be labeled License: Restrictive (as done currently), or License: Restrictive/Distributable The second one would be used when it is OK for Fink to distribute a binary, even though the license has some restrictions. Comments? -- Dave --- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: Thawte.com - A 128-bit supercerts will allow you to extend the highest allowed 128 bit encryption to all your clients even if they use browsers that are limited to 40 bit encryption. Get a guide here:http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?thaw0030en ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] new field in .info files
Le vendredi, 17 jan 2003, à 16:37 Europe/Paris, David R. Morrison a écrit : In a discussion on #fink today, we arrived at the following plan. A non-opensource license would either be labeled License: Restrictive (as done currently), or License: Restrictive/Distributable The second one would be used when it is OK for Fink to distribute a binary, even though the license has some restrictions. Comments? sounds good to me -- zauc --- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: Thawte.com - A 128-bit supercerts will allow you to extend the highest allowed 128 bit encryption to all your clients even if they use browsers that are limited to 40 bit encryption. Get a guide here:http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?thaw0030en ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
[Fink-devel] new field in .info files
With an eye towards constructing an automated build system for the binary distribution one of these days, I'd like to propose a new field for fink .info files: BinaryDistribution: True/False or Yes/No This field would only be consulted if the package is labeled License: Restrictive and in that case, it would indicate whether or not the package should be part of the binary distribution. Right now, this has to be done by hand and it is one of the things obstructing automation. Comments? -- Dave --- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: Thawte.com Understand how to protect your customers personal information by implementing SSL on your Apache Web Server. Click here to get our FREE Thawte Apache Guide: http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?thaw0029en ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] new field in .info files
On Donnerstag, Januar 16, 2003, at 04:36 Uhr, David R. Morrison wrote: BinaryDistribution: True/False or Yes/No Sounds good. I would go for True/False and default to False. This field would only be consulted if the package is labeled License: Restrictive and in that case, it would indicate whether or not the package should be part of the binary distribution. Right now, this has to be done by hand and it is one of the things obstructing automation. Wow! Automatic distribution building. Sounds Great! --- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: Thawte.com Understand how to protect your customers personal information by implementing SSL on your Apache Web Server. Click here to get our FREE Thawte Apache Guide: http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?thaw0029en ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] new field in .info files
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 David R. Morrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: With an eye towards constructing an automated build system for the binary distribution one of these days, I'd like to propose a new field for fink .info files: BinaryDistribution: True/False or Yes/No This field would only be consulted if the package is labeled License: Restrictive and in that case, it would indicate whether or not the package should be part of the binary distribution. Right now, this has to be done by hand and it is one of the things obstructing automation. Comments? -- Dave Very minor nitpick: How about BinaryDistributionAllowed or Permitted? It's a little vague without explanation (eg it might mean 'exists'). Damian -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (Darwin) Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.6 and Gnu Privacy Guard http://www.gnupg.org/ iD8DBQE+JuM5AyLCB+mTtykRAsBzAKCsKV+4dhgGhNL95TszEfLvniK8fgCfTH2n jZe4pB2c1ozB8GTxuQV/qXI= =f9A/ -END PGP SIGNATURE- --- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: Thawte.com Understand how to protect your customers personal information by implementing SSL on your Apache Web Server. Click here to get our FREE Thawte Apache Guide: http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?thaw0029en ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] new field in .info files
OK, suppose we just introduce the license category Distributible, and in the docs explain that Distributible covers non-open source licenses which allow Fink to distribute binaries. -- Dave --- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: Thawte.com Understand how to protect your customers personal information by implementing SSL on your Apache Web Server. Click here to get our FREE Thawte Apache Guide: http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?thaw0029en ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
