Hello everybody,
> On Sun, 08 Sep 2024 at 09:49:39 +0200, Niels Thykier wrote:
> > Is it really that valuable for us to have a delta here compared to what
> > upstream projects would use?
If I remember well, one of the reason for the divergence was that we
really wanted a system describing licens
Quoting Fabio Fantoni (2024-09-08 19:29:18)
> licensecheck even if with "--shortname-scheme spdx,debian" seems show
> some debian name where can show spdx instead, with only spdx is probably
> good but i haven't tested it enough
Interesting. Please file bugreports, one issue in detail in each
b
Il 08/09/2024 07:38, Jonas Smedegaard ha scritto:
[CC'ing Fabio as they seemingly missed my earlier list-only reply]
Quoting Fabio Fantoni (2024-09-07 23:57:35)
Il 07/09/2024 22:56, Aurélien COUDERC ha scritto:
Le samedi 7 septembre 2024, 21:43:35 CEST Fabio Fantoni a écrit :
So I wonder, is
Il 08/09/2024 12:25, Aurélien COUDERC ha scritto:
Le 8 septembre 2024 09:38:00 GMT+02:00, Andrea Pappacoda
a écrit :
Hi Aurélien,
On Sat Sep 7, 2024 at 10:56 PM CEST, Aurélien COUDERC wrote:
Our spec [2] already defines an equivalence rule between License-X and
License-X.0 declarations for
On Sun, 08 Sep 2024 at 09:49:39 +0200, Niels Thykier wrote:
> Is it really that valuable for us to have a delta here compared to what
> upstream projects would use?
IMO: no. If (some) upstream projects are now taking copyright/license
tracking in general (and machine-readable copyright/license spe
Le 8 septembre 2024 09:38:00 GMT+02:00, Andrea Pappacoda
a écrit :
>Hi Aurélien,
>
>On Sat Sep 7, 2024 at 10:56 PM CEST, Aurélien COUDERC wrote:
>> Our spec [2] already defines an equivalence rule between License-X and
>> License-X.0 declarations for SPDX compatibility.
>> For what I’ve seen
Jonas Smedegaard:
[...]
DEP5 already encourages (but does not require) use of SPDX shortnames,
except where Debian and SPDX disagree on sensible naming.
See https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/#spdx
and the historical notes at
https://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/Copy
Hi Aurélien,
On Sat Sep 7, 2024 at 10:56 PM CEST, Aurélien COUDERC wrote:
Our spec [2] already defines an equivalence rule between License-X and
License-X.0 declarations for SPDX compatibility.
For what I’ve seen on the quite vast and diverse KDE source corpus
we’d only need 2 additional equiva
[CC'ing Fabio as they seemingly missed my earlier list-only reply]
Quoting Fabio Fantoni (2024-09-07 23:57:35)
> Il 07/09/2024 22:56, Aurélien COUDERC ha scritto:
> > Le samedi 7 septembre 2024, 21:43:35 CEST Fabio Fantoni a écrit :
> >> So I wonder, is it possible to put in d/copyright DEP5 the s
Il 07/09/2024 22:56, Aurélien COUDERC ha scritto:
Hi Fabio,
Le samedi 7 septembre 2024, 21:43:35 CEST Fabio Fantoni a écrit :
So I wonder, is it possible to put in d/copyright DEP5 the short license
names using the spdx ones?
we’ve been doing that for KDE packages since upstream started taggi
Hi Fabio,
Le samedi 7 septembre 2024, 21:43:35 CEST Fabio Fantoni a écrit :
> So I wonder, is it possible to put in d/copyright DEP5 the short license
> names using the spdx ones?
we’ve been doing that for KDE packages since upstream started tagging all
source files with SPDX-License / SPDX-Co
Quoting Fabio Fantoni (2024-09-07 21:43:35)
> Hi, spdx has an ever-increasing usage. Today trying reuse tool I tried
> to convert DEP5 d/copyright to REUSE.toml thinking a possible help to
> some project upstream, when license and copyright "management" is not
> good, converting from d/copyright
Hi, spdx has an ever-increasing usage. Today trying reuse tool I tried
to convert DEP5 d/copyright to REUSE.toml thinking a possible help to
some project upstream, when license and copyright "management" is not
good, converting from d/copyright (DEP5) which is better, for example
with additiona
13 matches
Mail list logo
