Given that people are tired of discussing things they've already
decided for themselves I CC this to debian-legal.
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Ben Finney wrote:
> The Debian policy is software with source code: the DocBook source document.
It is not clear why GPL notice doesn't stay in the
please move your discussion to private or -legal
--
Piotr Ożarowski Debian GNU/Linux Developer
www.ozarowski.pl www.griffith.cc www.debian.org
GPG Fingerprint: 1D2F A898 58DA AF62 1786 2DF7 AEF6 F1A2 A745 7645
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 12:41 AM, Christoph Egger
wrote:
> anatoly techtonik schrieb:
>>
>> Questions like "Debian Python Policy is all about GPL. Do I have to
>> release my Python package under GPL?". Most people (as you clearly
>> expressed) don't care, so upstream maintainers would just avoid D
anatoly techtonik writes:
> On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 12:22 PM, Ben Finney
> wrote:
> > Why is it ridiculous? Is it any more ridiculous to put a policy
> > document under GPL than any other document?
>
> It is in the same ridiculous for other document. It is ridiculous in
> the way people want to
anatoly techtonik schrieb:
> On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 4:56 PM, Adam wrote:
>> This is a topic for debian-legal not debian-pyhton. Discuss it with them
>> (after looking at the archive), as they are the experts. If there are
>> problems (= results) that can be brought here again.
>
> The point is t
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 4:56 PM, Adam wrote:
> This is a topic for debian-legal not debian-pyhton. Discuss it with them
> (after looking at the archive), as they are the experts. If there are
> problems (= results) that can be brought here again.
The point is to make Python Policy clear without a
> Hello,
>
> The policy is under GPL license which is kind of ridiculous to prevent
> citing Debian Policy in private talks. I imagine people discussing
> "those folks at Debian. Have you heard - they've changed you-know-what
> to make packaging easier". =)
>
> Is there any license that more clearl
> I wouldn't go so far and see documentation as software. Apart from that
> I agree that it is important to clarify what one can do with this
> documentation (quote, modify, redistribute, etc.) and under which rules
> this has to happen. For example, when I quote a paragraph of the
> documentation
Omer Zak schrieb:
> On Sat, 2009-12-12 at 14:27 +0100, Bastian Venthur wrote:
>> Ben Finney schrieb:
>>> anatoly techtonik writes:
>>>
The policy is under GPL license which is kind of ridiculous to prevent
citing Debian Policy in private talks.
>>> Why is it ridiculous? Is it any more ri
On Sat, 2009-12-12 at 14:27 +0100, Bastian Venthur wrote:
> Ben Finney schrieb:
> > anatoly techtonik writes:
> >
> >> The policy is under GPL license which is kind of ridiculous to prevent
> >> citing Debian Policy in private talks.
> >
> > Why is it ridiculous? Is it any more ridiculous to put
Ben Finney schrieb:
> anatoly techtonik writes:
>
>> The policy is under GPL license which is kind of ridiculous to prevent
>> citing Debian Policy in private talks.
>
> Why is it ridiculous? Is it any more ridiculous to put a policy document
> under GPL than any other document?
Quoting the sec
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 12:22 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
>
>> The policy is under GPL license which is kind of ridiculous to prevent
>> citing Debian Policy in private talks.
>
> Why is it ridiculous? Is it any more ridiculous to put a policy document
> under GPL than any other document?
It is in the
anatoly techtonik writes:
> The policy is under GPL license which is kind of ridiculous to prevent
> citing Debian Policy in private talks.
Why is it ridiculous? Is it any more ridiculous to put a policy document
under GPL than any other document?
> I imagine people discussing "those folks at D
Hello,
The policy is under GPL license which is kind of ridiculous to prevent
citing Debian Policy in private talks. I imagine people discussing
"those folks at Debian. Have you heard - they've changed you-know-what
to make packaging easier". =)
Is there any license that more clearly states reaso
I think we are at the point where the proposed update to the Python Policy is
clearly more relevant and better than what is currently published. Once this
is done, we can work on refinements. Loïc Minier (lool) did attempt to send
the proposed final patch set to the list and it has gotten stuc
15 matches
Mail list logo
