Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org).
limit package debian-policy
Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy'
Limit currently set to
Le Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 12:51:36PM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
The purpose of /usr/share/common-licenses (with one exception, see below)
is not to accumulate good free software licenses, but rather primarily to
save space both in the archive and on installed systems. For example,
there
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes:
I would like to add that it helps to make the copyright summary much
more readable, when instead of having the information buried between
long copies of common licenses, there is their boilerplate and a link
to their full text.
This is also addressed
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 10.06.2010 21:45, Russ Allbery wrote:
I recently did a survey of both licenses already listed in common-licenses
and ones proposed for common-licenses using a Perl script that's now in
the debian-policy Git repository. The result was that the MPL version 1.1
was used by 654 binary packages
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
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes:
Currently, so far as I can see, nothing in the general discussion of the
syntax of control files prohibits repetition of the same field name in
one paragraph. For example:
Package: foo
Package: bar
However, I believe this should always be a syntax
Hi,
On 11/06/10 18:58, Russ Allbery wrote:
dpkg-dev checks this at build time, so this definitely seems to be the
right move. Here is a patch.
Objections or seconds?
diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
index 87b9795..99ab0ff 100644
--- a/policy.sgml
+++ b/policy.sgml
@@ -2398,6
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 09:58:28 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Objections or seconds?
diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
index 87b9795..99ab0ff 100644
--- a/policy.sgml
+++ b/policy.sgml
@@ -2398,6 +2398,11 @@ Package: libc6
/p
p
+ Each paragraph may contain at
* Russ Allbery r...@debian.org, 2010-06-11, 09:58:
diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
index 87b9795..99ab0ff 100644
--- a/policy.sgml
+++ b/policy.sgml
@@ -2398,6 +2398,11 @@ Package: libc6
/p
p
+ Each paragraph may contain at most one instance of a particular
+
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
Giacomo A. Catenazzi c...@debian.org writes:
The common-licenses was done (IIRC) to save disk space, so to use such
criteria, I would count only packages with priority = standard, or a
proof that most systems have the verbatim license installed many times).
That's roughly the sort of criteria
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
18 matches
Mail list logo
