On Tue, 29 Jun 2010, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Russ Allbery writes:
>
> > I therefore propose adding GPL version 1 to the list of licenses said by
> > Policy to be in common-licenses and asking Santiago to include a copy in
> > base-files. I'm not including a diff since it would just create merge
>
Russ Allbery writes:
> I therefore propose adding GPL version 1 to the list of licenses said by
> Policy to be in common-licenses and asking Santiago to include a copy in
> base-files. I'm not including a diff since it would just create merge
> conflicts with the BSD diff proposed earlier today
On Mon, 2010-06-28 at 10:58 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Andrew McMillan 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 sorr
Andrew McMillan 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 believe that
> large
Santiago Vila 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 well.
> T
Andrew McMillan 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 believe that
> large
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 unhap
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 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 illegal
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)
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 believe
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 delibe
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 includ
-=| gregor herrmann, Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 12:50:36AM +0200 |=-
> On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 14:54:45 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > I therefore propose adding GPL version 1 to the list of licenses
> > said by
> > Policy to be in common-licenses and asking Santiago to include a copy in
> > base-files. I'
On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 14:54:45 -0700, 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,
A
Santiago Vila writes:
> On Sun, 5 Aug 2007, Sam Hocevar wrote:
>>There are still many packages that mention the GPL version 1 in
>> their copyright file (around 350). Many Perl packages, but also Perl
>> itself and widespread things like sed, joe, cvs, dict...
>>There are also countless
reassign 436105 debian-policy
thanks
On Sun, 5 Aug 2007, Sam Hocevar wrote:
> Package: base-files
> Version: 4.0.0
> Severity: wishlist
>
>There are still many packages that mention the GPL version 1 in their
> copyright file (around 350). Many Perl packages, but also Perl itself
> and wides
Package: base-files
Version: 4.0.0
Severity: wishlist
There are still many packages that mention the GPL version 1 in their
copyright file (around 350). Many Perl packages, but also Perl itself
and widespread things like sed, joe, cvs, dict...
There are also countless packages that are unde
18 matches
Mail list logo
