[Just realized that I only sent this to Matthias Klose and the bug, but
not to debian-legal. This mail is to debian-legal only to avoid
duplicates; Mail-Followup-To set to everyone.]
Josh Triplett wrote:
> Matthias Klose wrote:
>
>>CC'ing debian-legal, please could you have a look at the license
On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 06:35:03PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> IMHO, the licenses you propose to be added to /usr/share/common-licenses
> are short enough that no disk space is saved at all by having a "single"
> copy in base-files. For this reason I think we could even remove the
> current BSD l
Henning Makholm (with my emphasis):
> If library L provides to program P an well-defined generic service
> with a simple black-box interface, and it is provided in a way that is
> essentially independent that the client is P rather than an unrelated
> program Q, then I think it is very hard to arg
reassign 284340 debian-policy
thanks
On Sun, 5 Dec 2004, Francesco Poli wrote:
> Package: base-files
> Version: 3.0.2
> Severity: wishlist
>
>
> Please remove reference to a specific copyright holder (The Regents of
> the University of California) in /usr/share/common-licenses/BSD and
> renam
Package: base-files
Version: 3.0.2
Severity: wishlist
Please remove reference to a specific copyright holder (The Regents of
the University of California) in /usr/share/common-licenses/BSD and
rename it 3-clause-BSD. Including only one narrow variant of the
BSD license seems highly error-prone.
5 matches
Mail list logo