Le lundi 14 mai 2012 01:59:41, Russ Allbery a écrit :
> "Thomas Preud'homme" writes:
> > Back to the redistribution. In the section 4 (Conveying Verbatim
> > Copies), what is discussed is the redistribution of the Program as
> > source code form. Every word is part of the same sentence, whose
> >
"Thomas Preud'homme" writes:
> Back to the redistribution. In the section 4 (Conveying Verbatim
> Copies), what is discussed is the redistribution of the Program as
> source code form. Every word is part of the same sentence, whose
> structure is: You may convey verbatim copies (…) provided that
Michael Gilbert writes:
> Hmmm, I really meant that I found point 1 to be quite astute. I agree,
> the conclusion is quite off. The copyright file is very important in
> binary packages, and should have full-text licenses.
> The important aspect of point 1 is the conclusion that at least with
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 10:25 PM, Russ Allbery:
>> So, I think [0] is the most astute message in that thread.
>
>> [0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/2000/11/msg00251.html
>
> I thought that too when I first read it, but later in the thread are very
> cogent arguments for why it's wrong and
Le samedi 12 mai 2012 22:56:39, Russ Allbery a écrit :
> "Thomas Preud'homme" writes:
> > Are you referring to [1]? Because the full paragraph is about Program's
> > source code.
> >
> > [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/2000/11/msg00260.html
> >
> > " 1. You may copy and distribute verb
"Thomas Preud'homme" writes:
> Are you referring to [1]? Because the full paragraph is about Program's
> source code.
> [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/2000/11/msg00260.html
> " 1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source
> code as you receive it, in any med
Le samedi 12 mai 2012 04:25:08, Russ Allbery a écrit :
> Michael Gilbert writes:
> > So, I think [0] is the most astute message in that thread.
> >
> > [0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/2000/11/msg00251.html
>
> I thought that too when I first read it, but later in the thread are very
>
Le Fri, May 11, 2012 at 07:52:05PM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
> Charles Plessy writes:
>
> > given that the source and binary packages are considered a single entity
> > -- otherwise we would be violating the GPLs v1 and v2 -- the Debian
> > copyright file is not necessary from a strictly lega
Charles Plessy writes:
> given that the source and binary packages are considered a single entity
> -- otherwise we would be violating the GPLs v1 and v2 -- the Debian
> copyright file is not necessary from a strictly legal point of view.
I don't see the logical justification for this statement.
Le Fri, May 11, 2012 at 10:10:17PM -0400, Michael Gilbert a écrit :
>
> Succinctly, the copyright file itself is irrelevant in the source
> package since the upstream source should have all of that information
> already, and at least for the GPL you can distribute source packages
> as is. Thus, t
Michael Gilbert writes:
> So, I think [0] is the most astute message in that thread.
> [0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/2000/11/msg00251.html
I thought that too when I first read it, but later in the thread are very
cogent arguments for why it's wrong and providing a complete copy of t
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Matthew Woodcraft wrote:
> Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I think the core question is: why is base-files special? Yes, it's
>> essential and all, but that doesn't address the case of packages being
>> downloaded separate from Debian, or unpacked by hand, in which case we
>>
Jakub Wilk, 2012-05-07 14:24+0200:
> How does it know whether to indent a line by one space[1] or two
> spaces[2]?
Is that such a big deal? Licenses are written to be understandable even
if their layout is changed, are they not?
--
,--.
: /` ) Tanguy Ortolo
| `-'Debian Developer
\_
Le Tue, May 08, 2012 at 05:14:23PM +0100, Simon McVittie a écrit :
>
> I think this implies that our unit of license-compliance is the source
> package, not the binary package - and I suspect the reason we want that
> property is that a source package is the smallest unit that the archive
> softwa
Matthew Woodcraft writes:
> Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I think the core question is: why is base-files special? Yes, it's
>> essential and all, but that doesn't address the case of packages being
>> downloaded separate from Debian, or unpacked by hand, in which case we
>> don't include a license. If
Russ Allbery wrote:
> I think the core question is: why is base-files special? Yes, it's
> essential and all, but that doesn't address the case of packages being
> downloaded separate from Debian, or unpacked by hand, in which case we
> don't include a license. If we're legally fine with that, I'm
On 08/05/12 16:23, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I think the core question is: why is base-files special? Yes, it's
> essential and all, but that doesn't address the case of packages being
> downloaded separate from Debian, or unpacked by hand, in which case we
> don't include a license.
Binary packages
"Thomas Preud'homme" writes:
> Le mardi 8 mai 2012 07:56:35, Peter Miller a écrit :
>> I has always puzzled me that there are not license packages that one
>> could Depends on, and get the appropriate license placed in the
>> appropriate place. Apt-get is an excellent mechanism for that kind of
On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 05:10:07PM +0800, Yao Wei (魏銘廷) wrote:
> Creative Commons are also a common licenses which many artworks are
> using it, but it does not necessary to attach the legal code on it. Is
> it reasonable to put Creative Commons licenses (at least
> DFSG-compatible ones) into a sin
Le mardi 8 mai 2012 07:56:35, Peter Miller a écrit :
> On Mon, 2012-05-07 at 20:23 -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Conversely, debhelper contains actual,
> > documented, and non-insane interfaces that could be used to do
> > this properly. For some value of "properly" that the ftpmasters
> > would prob
Creative Commons are also a common licenses which many artworks are
using it, but it does not necessary to attach the legal code on it. Is
it reasonable to put Creative Commons licenses (at least
DFSG-compatible ones) into a single package like
creative-commons-licenses?
--
Yao Wei
--
To UNSUB
Joey Hess writes:
> Gergely Nagy wrote:
>> debian/$package.docs:
>> | #! /usr/bin/dh-exec --with=copyright-magic
>> | debian/copyright.in | copyright-magic
>> | README.md
>> | whatever-else-you want
>
> On the off chance this is not another long-delayed April 1 post,
> let me mention that, since
On Mon, 2012-05-07 at 20:23 -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Conversely, debhelper contains actual,
> documented, and non-insane interfaces that could be used to do
> this properly. For some value of "properly" that the ftpmasters
> would probably still insta-REJECT.
I has always puzzled me that there a
Gergely Nagy wrote:
> debian/$package.docs:
> | #! /usr/bin/dh-exec --with=copyright-magic
> | debian/copyright.in | copyright-magic
> | README.md
> | whatever-else-you want
On the off chance this is not another long-delayed April 1 post,
let me mention that, since this relies on undocumented debh
Hello,
On Mon, 07 May 2012 18:32:50 +0200
Gergely Nagy wrote:
> since executable debian/copyright is not supported
If we forget for a second about dh-exec and how it's used, this sounds
really crazy :)
--
WBR, Andrew
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Michael Gilbert writes:
> On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Michael Gilbert wrote:
>> Would it be unreasonable if someone were to start an
>> "uncommon-licenses" package? Then any package depending on that could
>> use a reference to the license instead of including the full text in
>> debian/cop
Michael Gilbert writes:
> Would it be unreasonable if someone were to start an "uncommon-licenses"
> package? Then any package depending on that could use a reference to
> the license instead of including the full text in debian/copyright.
Does that satisfy our legal requirements? common-licen
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> Would it be unreasonable if someone were to start an
> "uncommon-licenses" package? Then any package depending on that could
> use a reference to the license instead of including the full text in
> debian/copyright.
I realize that this mis
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 6:33 AM, Andrea Veri wrote:
> Hi,
>
> while packaging a few extensions (mainly licensed under the MPL)
> within the pkg-mozext team we received a few rejects from the FTP Team
> having the following rationale:
>
> "the MPL license is not installed under /usr/share/common-lice
On Monday 07 May 2012 14:24:48 Jakub Wilk wrote:
> How does it know whether to indent a line by one space[1] or two
> spaces[2]? I am specifically thinking about avoiding mistakes like this:
Err... Currently, the algorithm is quite dumb: the whole text is shifted by
one space, empty lines are re
* Dominique Dumont , 2012-05-07, 14:04:
Converting a plain text file into a debian/copyright paragraph can be
boring.
The end of this blog shows a way that is almost as simple as doing a
plain copy:
http://ddumont.wordpress.com/2012/02/10/dpkg-edit-debiancontrol-description-without-worrying-
On Monday 07 May 2012 12:46:20 Igor Pashev wrote:
> > [1] http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/
> > [2] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=487201
>
> I think now it's the best to include full text into debian/copyright.
> Until (if ever) MPL included in base-files.
Converting a plain text
07.05.2012 14:33, Andrea Veri пишет:
> Hi,
>
> while packaging a few extensions (mainly licensed under the MPL)
> within the pkg-mozext team we received a few rejects from the FTP Team
> having the following rationale:
>
> "the MPL license is not installed under /usr/share/common-licenses,
> t
Hi,
while packaging a few extensions (mainly licensed under the MPL)
within the pkg-mozext team we received a few rejects from the FTP Team
having the following rationale:
"the MPL license is not installed under /usr/share/common-licenses,
thus the full text has to be added into debian/copyrig
34 matches
Mail list logo