On ti, 2011-01-18 at 08:00 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
I am hoping that given SPDX is advancing towards beta release, they will
fill these pages in a not too long time. But in the meantime, we could
add a link to their license table, if necessary:
diff --git a/dep5.mdwn b/dep5.mdwn
index
Le Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 09:09:09PM +0200, Lars Wirzenius a écrit :
I think I agree with your proposal to link to SPDX. Alternatively, we
could collect the licenses as attachments to the spec, or point at the
ones on the OSI site. I'd rather avoid attaching things, but otherwise
Le Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 03:31:38PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit :
It seems to me that the third patch has been applied by now,
although the referenced SPDX web pages for BSD licenses are empty.
Was that deliberate? I feel that it makes the current draft not
appropriate for widespread
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 08:00:27AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 03:31:38PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit :
It seems to me that the third patch has been applied by now, although
the referenced SPDX web pages for BSD licenses are empty.
Was that deliberate? I feel
Applied all three patches, thanks.
On to, 2011-01-13 at 09:53 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 09:09:09PM +0200, Lars Wirzenius a écrit :
I think I agree with your proposal to link to SPDX. Alternatively, we
could collect the licenses as attachments to the spec, or
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 09:53:55AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
I just realised that the SPDX site is not yet ready as their license
links point to empty pages: http://spdx.org/licenses/
I attached three patches. The first removes the FreeBSD license, the
second adds missing links to upstream
On ma, 2011-01-10 at 19:24 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
The current version of the DEP specifies that the differences with the SPDX
format will be tracked. My understanding of this, and the discussions we had
before, is that we will use the same short names than SPDX unless specified
Le Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 09:09:09PM +0200, Lars Wirzenius a écrit :
I think I agree with your proposal to link to SPDX. Alternatively, we
could collect the licenses as attachments to the spec, or point at the
ones on the OSI site. I'd rather avoid attaching things, but otherwise
I'm fine with
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 12:58:48AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
I don't know that there need to be any normative changes to correct this,
but I think there definitely need to be some clearer pointers to an external
reference for the license definitions for these short names.
This is a very
Le Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 10:00:47AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit :
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 12:58:48AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
I don't know that there need to be any normative changes to correct this,
but I think there definitely need to be some clearer pointers to an external
Hi Lars,
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 10:49:02PM +, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
All of the below is now done, I've today done the final bits by
splitting BSD into BSD-[234]-clause and renaming some licenses to match
the names in SPDX.
Reading over the present contents of
All of the below is now done, I've today done the final bits by
splitting BSD into BSD-[234]-clause and renaming some licenses to match
the names in SPDX.
As far as I know, these were the final changes that were needed. Does
anyone object if I change the status of DEP5 to CANDIDATE, and push the
12 matches
Mail list logo
