Le lundi 14 mai 2012 01:59:41, Russ Allbery a écrit :
Thomas Preud'homme robo...@celest.fr writes:
Back to the redistribution. In the section 4 (Conveying Verbatim
Copies), what is discussed is the redistribution of the Program as
source code form. Every word is part of the same sentence,
Le samedi 12 mai 2012 22:56:39, Russ Allbery a écrit :
Thomas Preud'homme robo...@celest.fr writes:
Are you referring to [1]? Because the full paragraph is about Program's
source code.
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/2000/11/msg00260.html
1. You may copy and distribute
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 10:25 PM, Russ Allbery:
So, I think [0] is the most astute message in that thread.
[0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/2000/11/msg00251.html
I thought that too when I first read it, but later in the thread are very
cogent arguments for why it's wrong and
Michael Gilbert michael.s.gilb...@gmail.com writes:
Hmmm, I really meant that I found point 1 to be quite astute. I agree,
the conclusion is quite off. The copyright file is very important in
binary packages, and should have full-text licenses.
The important aspect of point 1 is the
Thomas Preud'homme robo...@celest.fr writes:
Back to the redistribution. In the section 4 (Conveying Verbatim
Copies), what is discussed is the redistribution of the Program as
source code form. Every word is part of the same sentence, whose
structure is: You may convey verbatim copies (…)
Le samedi 12 mai 2012 04:25:08, Russ Allbery a écrit :
Michael Gilbert michael.s.gilb...@gmail.com writes:
So, I think [0] is the most astute message in that thread.
[0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/2000/11/msg00251.html
I thought that too when I first read it, but later in the
Thomas Preud'homme robo...@celest.fr writes:
Are you referring to [1]? Because the full paragraph is about Program's
source code.
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/2000/11/msg00260.html
1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source
code as you receive it,
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Matthew Woodcraft wrote:
Russ Allbery wrote:
I think the core question is: why is base-files special? Yes, it's
essential and all, but that doesn't address the case of packages being
downloaded separate from Debian, or unpacked by hand, in which case we
don't
Michael Gilbert michael.s.gilb...@gmail.com writes:
So, I think [0] is the most astute message in that thread.
[0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/2000/11/msg00251.html
I thought that too when I first read it, but later in the thread are very
cogent arguments for why it's wrong and
to include a
verbatim
copy of all licenses that are not distributed in /usr/share/common-licenses
would be to ask the FTP team their opinion on that matter.
Cheers,
--
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes:
given that the source and binary packages are considered a single entity
-- otherwise we would be violating the GPLs v1 and v2 -- the Debian
copyright file is not necessary from a strictly legal point of view.
I don't see the logical justification for
Le Fri, May 11, 2012 at 07:52:05PM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes:
given that the source and binary packages are considered a single entity
-- otherwise we would be violating the GPLs v1 and v2 -- the Debian
copyright file is not necessary from a
Jakub Wilk, 2012-05-07 14:24+0200:
How does it know whether to indent a line by one space[1] or two
spaces[2]?
Is that such a big deal? Licenses are written to be understandable even
if their layout is changed, are they not?
--
,--.
: /` ) Tanguy Ortolo xmpp:tan...@ortolo.eu
On Mon, 2012-05-07 at 20:23 -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
Conversely, debhelper contains actual,
documented, and non-insane interfaces that could be used to do
this properly. For some value of properly that the ftpmasters
would probably still insta-REJECT.
I has always puzzled me that there are
Joey Hess jo...@debian.org writes:
Gergely Nagy wrote:
debian/$package.docs:
| #! /usr/bin/dh-exec --with=copyright-magic
| debian/copyright.in | copyright-magic
| README.md
| whatever-else-you want
On the off chance this is not another long-delayed April 1 post,
let me mention that,
Creative Commons are also a common licenses which many artworks are
using it, but it does not necessary to attach the legal code on it. Is
it reasonable to put Creative Commons licenses (at least
DFSG-compatible ones) into a single package like
creative-commons-licenses?
--
Yao Wei
--
To
Le mardi 8 mai 2012 07:56:35, Peter Miller a écrit :
On Mon, 2012-05-07 at 20:23 -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
Conversely, debhelper contains actual,
documented, and non-insane interfaces that could be used to do
this properly. For some value of properly that the ftpmasters
would probably still
On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 05:10:07PM +0800, Yao Wei (魏銘廷) wrote:
Creative Commons are also a common licenses which many artworks are
using it, but it does not necessary to attach the legal code on it. Is
it reasonable to put Creative Commons licenses (at least
DFSG-compatible ones) into a single
Thomas Preud'homme robo...@celest.fr writes:
Le mardi 8 mai 2012 07:56:35, Peter Miller a écrit :
I has always puzzled me that there are not license packages that one
could Depends on, and get the appropriate license placed in the
appropriate place. Apt-get is an excellent mechanism for that
On 08/05/12 16:23, Russ Allbery wrote:
I think the core question is: why is base-files special? Yes, it's
essential and all, but that doesn't address the case of packages being
downloaded separate from Debian, or unpacked by hand, in which case we
don't include a license.
Binary packages
Russ Allbery wrote:
I think the core question is: why is base-files special? Yes, it's
essential and all, but that doesn't address the case of packages being
downloaded separate from Debian, or unpacked by hand, in which case we
don't include a license. If we're legally fine with that, I'm
Matthew Woodcraft matt...@woodcraft.me.uk writes:
Russ Allbery wrote:
I think the core question is: why is base-files special? Yes, it's
essential and all, but that doesn't address the case of packages being
downloaded separate from Debian, or unpacked by hand, in which case we
don't include
Le Tue, May 08, 2012 at 05:14:23PM +0100, Simon McVittie a écrit :
I think this implies that our unit of license-compliance is the source
package, not the binary package - and I suspect the reason we want that
property is that a source package is the smallest unit that the archive
software
Hi,
while packaging a few extensions (mainly licensed under the MPL)
within the pkg-mozext team we received a few rejects from the FTP Team
having the following rationale:
the MPL license is not installed under /usr/share/common-licenses,
thus the full text has to be added into debian
07.05.2012 14:33, Andrea Veri пишет:
Hi,
while packaging a few extensions (mainly licensed under the MPL)
within the pkg-mozext team we received a few rejects from the FTP Team
having the following rationale:
the MPL license is not installed under /usr/share/common-licenses,
thus
On Monday 07 May 2012 12:46:20 Igor Pashev wrote:
[1] http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/
[2] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=487201
I think now it's the best to include full text into debian/copyright.
Until (if ever) MPL included in base-files.
Converting a plain text file
* Dominique Dumont d...@debian.org, 2012-05-07, 14:04:
Converting a plain text file into a debian/copyright paragraph can be
boring.
The end of this blog shows a way that is almost as simple as doing a
plain copy:
On Monday 07 May 2012 14:24:48 Jakub Wilk wrote:
How does it know whether to indent a line by one space[1] or two
spaces[2]? I am specifically thinking about avoiding mistakes like this:
Err... Currently, the algorithm is quite dumb: the whole text is shifted by
one space, empty lines are
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 6:33 AM, Andrea Veri wrote:
Hi,
while packaging a few extensions (mainly licensed under the MPL)
within the pkg-mozext team we received a few rejects from the FTP Team
having the following rationale:
the MPL license is not installed under /usr/share/common-licenses
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Michael Gilbert wrote:
Would it be unreasonable if someone were to start an
uncommon-licenses package? Then any package depending on that could
use a reference to the license instead of including the full text in
debian/copyright.
I realize that this misses a
Michael Gilbert michael.s.gilb...@gmail.com writes:
Would it be unreasonable if someone were to start an uncommon-licenses
package? Then any package depending on that could use a reference to
the license instead of including the full text in debian/copyright.
Does that satisfy our legal
Michael Gilbert mgilb...@debian.org writes:
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Michael Gilbert wrote:
Would it be unreasonable if someone were to start an
uncommon-licenses package? Then any package depending on that could
use a reference to the license instead of including the full text in
Hello,
On Mon, 07 May 2012 18:32:50 +0200
Gergely Nagy alger...@balabit.hu wrote:
since executable debian/copyright is not supported
If we forget for a second about dh-exec and how it's used, this sounds
really crazy :)
--
WBR, Andrew
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Gergely Nagy wrote:
debian/$package.docs:
| #! /usr/bin/dh-exec --with=copyright-magic
| debian/copyright.in | copyright-magic
| README.md
| whatever-else-you want
On the off chance this is not another long-delayed April 1 post,
let me mention that, since this relies on undocumented
34 matches
Mail list logo
