Hello,
I've packaged a piece of my own software which is licenced under GNU
GPL version 2. I'm not yet a Debian developer but a developer is going
to advocate. One of the things he asked me to do was to ask from
debian-policy what to do in situations like this.
lintian complains:
$ lintian -i
On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 11:12:41AM +0300, Ari Makela wrote:
:lintian complains:
:
:$ lintian -i dbmanage_1.0.1-3_i386.changes
:E: dbmanage: copyright-file-contains-full-gpl-license
:N:
:N: The copyright file /usr/share/doc/pkg/copyright contains the
:N: complete text of the GPL. It should
On 20010830T084026-0400, Jonathan D. Proulx wrote:
$ head -3 /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL
GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 2, June 1991
Yes, but that will probably not be true forever.
--
%%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] %
On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 04:18:35PM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
:On 20010830T084026-0400, Jonathan D. Proulx wrote:
: $ head -3 /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL
: GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
:Version 2, June 1991
:
:Yes, but that will probably not
Jonathan D. Proulx writes:
On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 11:12:41AM +0300, Ari Makela wrote:
$ head -3 /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL
GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 2, June 1991
Yes, indeed, but that's not what I ment. I'm sorry, my email was
Hello,
Could you please direct this request to the proper party or department? We
would like to get some additional information about your business in an effort
to explore the ways that we might be able to work together. If possible, we
would like to receive your media package. If you have an
Jonathan D. Proulx (2001-08-30 09:47:16 -0400) :
Is the or later clause part of the GPL?
No. It is suggested in the GPL, but no more.
,
| 9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions
| of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will
|
Jonathan D. Proulx writes:
Forever is a long time. If you refer to the file system location,
that's part of maintaining a package.
But many packages can be installed to a older or newer versions of
Debian. That's why one cannot simply assume the file includes version
2.
I suspect you
On 30-Aug-01, 03:12 (CDT), Ari Makela [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't like the idea of licencing my software under a licence I
cannot know because it doesn't even exist so I tend to use GPL version
2.
So should I just ignore the error message or should there be file
Ari == Ari Makela [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ari The file now includes GPL version 2 but probably not in future Debian
Ari releases. And what if my package is installed in such a future
Ari release? It'll have a wrong licence.
Flawed assumption. I think you do Debian and the policy
On 20010830T114438-0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Flawed assumption. I think you do Debian and the policy group
a disservice by claiming that we shall, in the future, have such
little regard for copyrights and installed bases.
You are being unfair. Most GPL software are licensed with
Manoj Srivastava writes:
a disservice by claiming that we shall,
I feel disservice is rather strongly said. Well, maybe I'm a little
touchy here.
little regard for copyrights and installed bases.
One of the many reasons I've been using Debian since version 1.2 is
that Debian does
On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 11:44:38AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Ari == Ari Makela [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ari The file now includes GPL version 2 but probably not in future Debian
Ari releases. And what if my package is installed in such a future
Ari release? It'll have a wrong
Antti-Juhani == Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Antti-Juhani On 20010830T114438-0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Flawed assumption. I think you do Debian and the policy group
a disservice by claiming that we shall, in the future, have such
little regard for copyrights and
Ari Makela wrote:
I asked because *I* didn't want to screw up my package. I've thought
for years that Debian is in many ways the nicest OS for i386 (and of
course for some other platforms) and when I've made packages I've
tried to keep up the quality that Debian has. That's why I ask when I
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.1.1.1
Virtual packages java-compiler and java-virtual-machine, mentioned in
java-common/policy.html, are not included in
debian-policy/virtual-package-names-list.text.gz
(The java-common policy still claims the status PROPOSED, but both virtual
packages are
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.1.1.1
In debian-policy/policy.html, under headings 2.3.5 Virtual packages, 3.6
Menus and 3.7 Multimedia handlers there are references to
/debian/doc/package-developer/, but the files referenced there seem to be
part of debian-policy. package-developer does not
On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 03:04:52PM -0400, Jim Penny [EMAIL PROTECTED] was
heard to say:
Flawed assumption. I think you do Debian and the policy group
a disservice by claiming that we shall, in the future, have such
little regard for copyrights and installed bases.
Actually, I
On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 09:47:51PM -0400, Daniel Burrows wrote:
On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 03:04:52PM -0400, Jim Penny [EMAIL PROTECTED] was
heard to say:
Actually, I think the whole discussion has been a bit off point.
As I read the original email, the developer wanted to release the
19 matches
Mail list logo
