John Scott wrote...
> On Saturday, January 2, 2021 10:30:56 AM EST Matthew Vernon wrote:
> > I have noticed some packages using the newer machine-readable copyright
> > format, but not specifying any copyright for debian/*
> That's not good practice. You should ask the package maintainer to inclu
Christoph Biedl wrote...
> Ian Jackson wrote...
>
> > Is upstream contactable ? Maybe they could be persuaded to drop the
> > restriction. Does anyone know if they have been asked ?
>
> Well, I gave it a try. The address is pretty old but at least there's
> s
Ian Jackson wrote...
> Is upstream contactable ? Maybe they could be persuaded to drop the
> restriction. Does anyone know if they have been asked ?
Well, I gave it a try. The address is pretty old but at least there's
still a mail server for it, and a message was not rejected instantly.
C
Hi there,
I'd like to fix dvi2dvi which (besides a no-brainer) has a problem
| #841056 dvi2dvi: license requires package rename
>3. The package name of the modified software must not be ``dvi2dvi'' or
>``dvi2dvi-'' where is the version number.
Now I could take some advice what in Debian woul
Hello,
every now and then I receive submissions (i.e. patches) by e-mail for
packages I maintain. Sometimes a disclaimer¹ is part of that message,
a text that denies me from doing certain things with that e-mail -
like copying or disclosing the message.
In my opinion using such a patch for an upl
Hello,
probably old stuff, but when it comes to licensing terms I prefer to
play safe ...
In a source package I found a license but as often the name of the
license is missing. The licensecheck didn't help either but a search
in the net suggests it's an MIT license since the text is the one that
Paul Tagliamonte wrote...
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 08:31:24PM +0100, Christoph Biedl wrote:
> > Thibaut Paumard wrote...
> >
> > > IANAL, but this discussion has got me wondering were we should draw the
> > > line. Summary: in my opinion, if you intend on upload
Thibaut Paumard wrote...
> IANAL, but this discussion has got me wondering were we should draw the
> line. Summary: in my opinion, if you intend on uploading a package which
> as fair chances of being classified as pornography *somewhere*, please
> don't. Argumentation follows (Nils, obviously I'm
tl;dr - I'd really like to use the DEP-5 keywords but looking closer I
get the feeling I should always use my own ones. Something that is
clearly not in the intention of DEP-5.
Hello,
while converting debian/copyright of a Debian package into DEP-5, a
lot of questions arose. Can you please give s
9 matches
Mail list logo
