Quoting Pirate Praveen (2017-10-24 05:43:48)
> On ചൊവ്വ 10 ഒക്ടോബര് 2017 03:49 വൈകു, Pirate Praveen wrote:
> > On ചൊവ്വ 10 ഒക്ടോബര് 2017 03:05 വൈകു, Pirate Praveen wrote:
> >> Sorry about the whole discussion escalating to this level.
> >
> > Just add context, I was asked to add this to
On ചൊവ്വ 10 ഒക്ടോബര് 2017 03:49 വൈകു, Pirate Praveen wrote:
> On ചൊവ്വ 10 ഒക്ടോബര് 2017 03:05 വൈകു, Pirate Praveen wrote:
>> Sorry about the whole discussion escalating to this level.
>
> Just add context, I was asked to add this to copyright file by another
> ftp master and it was not found by
On ചൊവ്വ 10 ഒക്ടോബര് 2017 03:05 വൈകു, Pirate Praveen wrote:
> Sorry about the whole discussion escalating to this level.
Just add context, I was asked to add this to copyright file by another
ftp master and it was not found by licensecheck.
On ചൊവ്വ 10 ഒക്ടോബര് 2017 02:40 വൈകു, Pirate Praveen wrote:
> I knew that much, hence I added the comment that author name is missing.
> Now if there is a LICENSE file in a directory, won't it apply to all
> files in that directory? Or should I just add Copyright: NONE?
I was wrongly thinking
On ചൊവ്വ 10 ഒക്ടോബര് 2017 02:35 വൈകു, Chris Lamb wrote:
> But this is part of the license's documentation, not a statement about
> the package itself.
> It is part of the "How to apply the Apache License to your work"
> boilerplate...
>
I knew that much, hence I added the comment that author
> > This makes me worry we are still not in sync about what the problem is...
[…]
> You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works
> [] [name of copyright owner]
> license to reproduce, prepare Derivative Works of,
> patent, trademark, and
But this is part of the
On ചൊവ്വ 10 ഒക്ടോബര് 2017 02:08 വൈകു, Chris Lamb wrote:
> This makes me worry we are still not in sync about what the problem is...
>
> Ignore this package for now: if I, totally by accident, mispasted a line
> into a debian/copyright file, the solution would be to remove such a line,
> no? Not
> > The obvious solution to me is to remove the accidental reference in
> > debian/copyright, not remove the file which contains some meta-copyright
> > message.
>
> If this was suggested early on, we did not have to go through this long
> thread
This makes me worry we are still not in sync
On ചൊവ്വ 10 ഒക്ടോബര് 2017 01:03 വൈകു, Chris Lamb wrote:
> Pirate,
>
>> Now with those files removed from the source tarball, lets move on.
>> Please see if the current uploads in NEW meets the criteria.
>
> Please try and refrain such emotionally-driven comments in future. I
> hope it is clear
Pirate,
> Now with those files removed from the source tarball, lets move on.
> Please see if the current uploads in NEW meets the criteria.
Please try and refrain such emotionally-driven comments in future. I
hope it is clear I attempted to be friendly and reset the frame of this
discussion,
On ചൊവ്വ 10 ഒക്ടോബര് 2017 12:31 വൈകു, Chris Lamb wrote:
> No.
>
> Pirate, please read over the following extremely carefully before replying
> as I would like to avoid either of us becoming frustrated by these repeated
> failures at conversation.
>
> The situation, as I understand it, is as
Hi,
> > Where it is used is not material here
>
> There is a difference which missed to articulate in previous replies. If
> it is an optional component like only used for tests, we can just get
> rid of it without affecting the functionality.
No.
Pirate, please read over the following
On ഞായര് 08 ഒക്ടോബര് 2017 08:54 വൈകു, Chris Lamb wrote:
> Where it is used is not material here unless I am missing something
> fundamental.
There is a difference which missed to articulate in previous replies. If
it is an optional component like only used for tests, we can just get
rid of it
Hi Pirate Praveen,
We are talking different things.
-Chris
> On ഞായര് 08 ഒക്ടോബര് 2017 09:07 വൈകു, Chris Lamb wrote:
> > Again, it makes no difference.. The text you quote is part of 'how do I
> > apply this license' not a copyright statement in itself..
>
> We are in this situation
On തിങ്കള് 09 ഒക്ടോബര് 2017 12:48 വൈകു, Chris Lamb wrote:
> We are talking different things.
What do you suggest as a way forward?
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--
Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list
Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
On ഞായര് 08 ഒക്ടോബര് 2017 09:07 വൈകു, Chris Lamb wrote:
> Again, it makes no difference.. The text you quote is part of 'how do I apply
> this license' not a copyright statement in itself..
We are in this situation because the License file does not include the
name of copyright holder. I have
Hi Pirate Praveen,
Where it is used is not material here unless I am missing something
fundamental.
> On ഞായര് 08 ഒക്ടോബര് 2017 08:30 വൈകു, Chris Lamb wrote:
> >
> >
> > 11 Files: packages/babel-preset-es2015/test/fixtures/traceur/*
> > 12 Copyright: [] [name of copyright owner]
>
Hi Pirate Praveen,
Again, it makes no difference.. The text you quote is part of 'how do I apply
this license' not a copyright statement in itself..
> On ഞായര് 08 ഒക്ടോബര് 2017 08:54 വൈകു, Chris Lamb wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hi Pirate Praveen,
> >
> > Where it is used is not material here
On ഞായര് 08 ഒക്ടോബര് 2017 08:54 വൈകു, Chris Lamb wrote:
>
>
> Hi Pirate Praveen,
>
> Where it is used is not material here unless I am missing something
> fundamental.
I meant, these are not generated by me, its provided as fixtures, that
is used during test.
I'm adding copyright to
On ഞായര് 08 ഒക്ടോബര് 2017 08:30 വൈകു, Chris Lamb wrote:
>
>
> 11 Files: packages/babel-preset-es2015/test/fixtures/traceur/*
> 12 Copyright: [] [name of copyright owner]
> 13 License: Apache-2.0
> 14 Comment: name of copyright holder is missing
>
> Really? No it's not. This is a meta
11 Files: packages/babel-preset-es2015/test/fixtures/traceur/*
12 Copyright: [] [name of copyright owner]
13 License: Apache-2.0
14 Comment: name of copyright holder is missing
Really? No it's not. This is a meta statement in a LICENSE text AFAICT. Are you
generating these lines
21 matches
Mail list logo
