On Tue, 29 Jun 2010, Russ Allbery wrote:
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes:
I therefore propose adding GPL version 1 to the list of licenses said by
Policy to be in common-licenses and asking Santiago to include a copy in
base-files. I'm not including a diff since it would just create
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes:
I therefore propose adding GPL version 1 to the list of licenses said by
Policy to be in common-licenses and asking Santiago to include a copy in
base-files. I'm not including a diff since it would just create merge
conflicts with the BSD diff proposed
Andrew McMillan and...@morphoss.com writes:
On Fri, 2010-06-11 at 11:35 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
Ok, I agree that it would a good idea to include GPL-1 in common-licenses
because of the high number of packages still using it.
I'm sorry, but I disagree, for the time being. I do not
On Mon, 2010-06-28 at 10:58 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Andrew McMillan and...@morphoss.com writes:
On Fri, 2010-06-11 at 11:35 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
Ok, I agree that it would a good idea to include GPL-1 in common-licenses
because of the high number of packages still using it.
On Thu, 10 Jun 2010, Russ Allbery wrote:
Given that, while I'm very sympathetic to Santiago's argument, I also
think that we should be able to represent in packages their upstream
licensing statement and not be implicitly relicensing them under later
versions of the GPL, and without including
On Fri, 2010-06-11 at 11:35 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
Ok, I agree that it would a good idea to include GPL-1 in common-licenses
because of the high number of packages still using it.
I'm sorry, but I disagree, for the time being. I do not believe that
large numbers of packages are
On 11.06.2010 13:16, Andrew McMillan wrote:
On Fri, 2010-06-11 at 11:35 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
Ok, I agree that it would a good idea to include GPL-1 in common-licenses
because of the high number of packages still using it.
I'm sorry, but I disagree, for the time being. I do not
On Fri, 2010-06-11 at 14:14 +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
Yes for new code, but old code cannot be relicensed easily:
all authors should agree, but GPLv1 is very old, in periods
where contribution did not have an email and fix (live-long)
email address was not common.
It is:
(a) old
On 11.06.2010 14:25, Andrew McMillan wrote:
If the code is v1-or-later then a trivial fork (by the original
developer) is able to relicense it as v2-or-later or v3-or-later. If
the original developer is unhappy with doing that, then they do have
uncommon licensing desires.
It would be
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 00:25:57 +1200, Andrew McMillan wrote:
If the code is v1-or-later then a trivial fork (by the original
developer) is able to relicense it as v2-or-later or v3-or-later. If
the original developer is unhappy with doing that, then they do have
uncommon licensing desires.
On Fri, 2010-06-11 at 14:40 +0200, gregor herrmann wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 00:25:57 +1200, Andrew McMillan wrote:
If the code is v1-or-later then a trivial fork (by the original
developer) is able to relicense it as v2-or-later or v3-or-later. If
the original developer is unhappy with
Andrew McMillan and...@morphoss.com writes:
On Fri, 2010-06-11 at 11:35 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
Ok, I agree that it would a good idea to include GPL-1 in
common-licenses because of the high number of packages still using it.
I'm sorry, but I disagree, for the time being. I do not
Santiago Vila sanv...@unex.es writes:
Then we usually add this little blurb:
On Debian GNU/Linux systems, the complete text of the GNU General
Public License can be found in `/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL'.
which is an addon to the previous paragraph, so it's for informational
purposes as
On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 14:54:45 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Given that, while I'm very sympathetic to Santiago's argument, I also
think that we should be able to represent in packages their upstream
licensing statement and not be implicitly relicensing them under later
versions of the GPL,
Ack,
-=| gregor herrmann, Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 12:50:36AM +0200 |=-
On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 14:54:45 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
I therefore propose adding GPL version 1 to the list of licenses
said by
Policy to be in common-licenses and asking Santiago to include a copy in
base-files. I'm not
Santiago Vila sanv...@unex.es writes:
On Sun, 5 Aug 2007, Sam Hocevar wrote:
There are still many packages that mention the GPL version 1 in
their copyright file (around 350). Many Perl packages, but also Perl
itself and widespread things like sed, joe, cvs, dict...
There are also
reassign 436105 debian-policy
thanks
On Sun, 5 Aug 2007, Sam Hocevar wrote:
Package: base-files
Version: 4.0.0
Severity: wishlist
There are still many packages that mention the GPL version 1 in their
copyright file (around 350). Many Perl packages, but also Perl itself
and widespread
Package: base-files
Version: 4.0.0
Severity: wishlist
There are still many packages that mention the GPL version 1 in their
copyright file (around 350). Many Perl packages, but also Perl itself
and widespread things like sed, joe, cvs, dict...
There are also countless packages that are
18 matches
Mail list logo
