On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 07:34:17PM +0100, Romain Beauxis wrote:
> > (For example, up until I
> > started experimenting with the new copyright file format, I never
> > documented the license or copyright information for any of the
> > Autotools-generated files, and I never heard a peep of concern a
Romain Beauxis wrote:
> Le Friday 20 March 2009 19:55:29 Emilio Pozuelo Monfort, vous avez écrit :
>>> Since the vast majority of the packages fall into a regular copyright and
>>> licensing, this would also mean overload the policy with stuff that is
>>> only relevant in a very small number of cas
Le Friday 20 March 2009 19:55:29 Emilio Pozuelo Monfort, vous avez écrit :
> > Since the vast majority of the packages fall into a regular copyright and
> > licensing, this would also mean overload the policy with stuff that is
> > only relevant in a very small number of cases in proportion.
>
> If
Romain Beauxis writes:
> Sorry, but there was also an argument below in my message.
>
> The point is that there are possibly a lot of corner cases, such as the
> autotools case, for which we can't really decide and list every single
> issue or produce a general rational.
>
> Since the vast majori
Romain Beauxis wrote:
> Le Friday 20 March 2009 19:38:34 Russ Allbery, vous avez écrit :
>>> But do you think this is possible ?
>> Sure. Resolving this sort of thing is the point of the Policy process,
>> after all, and we have a clear authority that does the enforcement
>> (ftp-master), so it se
Le Friday 20 March 2009 19:38:34 Russ Allbery, vous avez écrit :
> > But do you think this is possible ?
>
> Sure. Resolving this sort of thing is the point of the Policy process,
> after all, and we have a clear authority that does the enforcement
> (ftp-master), so it seems likely that we can re
Kalle Kivimaa writes:
> Russ Allbery writes:
>> started experimenting with the new copyright file format, I never
>> documented the license or copyright information for any of the
>> Autotools-generated files, and I never heard a peep of concern about
>> that.)
> Currently the ftpmasters don't
Romain Beauxis writes:
> Le Friday 20 March 2009 19:12:02 Russ Allbery, vous avez écrit :
>> Maybe the best resolution to this is to have a broader discussion that
>> leads to a rewording of Policy 12.5 that makes the requirements
>> explicit, with ftp-master buy-in on what the requirements are?
Russ Allbery writes:
> started experimenting with the new copyright file format, I never
> documented the license or copyright information for any of the
> Autotools-generated files, and I never heard a peep of concern about
> that.)
Currently the ftpmasters don't require those copyrights to be l
Le Friday 20 March 2009 19:12:02 Russ Allbery, vous avez écrit :
> Maybe the best resolution to this is to have a broader discussion that
> leads to a rewording of Policy 12.5 that makes the requirements explicit,
> with ftp-master buy-in on what the requirements are?
> on the same page and every
Josselin Mouette writes:
> Le vendredi 20 mars 2009 à 10:39 -0500, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
>> I don't care for copyright notices, really. I care for license
>> statements; and I take the upstream on trust that the license attached
>> to the work is valid (since it is hard to determin
11 matches
Mail list logo
