On 20010830T141556-0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Yes, it would, since we would be violating the terms of the
> packages that do _not_ want later versions; and if people in charge
> of policy when GPL v3 comes out do not take care of this, they shall
> be screwing up.
Actually, I think
On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 09:47:51PM -0400, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 03:04:52PM -0400, Jim Penny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was
> heard to say:
> > Actually, I think the whole discussion has been a bit off point.
> > As I read the original email, the developer wanted to release the
>
On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 03:04:52PM -0400, Jim Penny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was
heard to say:
> > Flawed assumption. I think you do Debian and the policy group
> > a disservice by claiming that we shall, in the future, have such
> > little regard for copyrights and installed bases.
> >
>
> Ac
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.1.1.1
In debian-policy/policy.html, under headings 2.3.5 Virtual packages, 3.6
Menus and 3.7 Multimedia handlers there are references to
/debian/doc/package-developer/, but the files referenced there seem to be
part of debian-policy. package-developer does not exi
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.1.1.1
Virtual packages java-compiler and java-virtual-machine, mentioned in
java-common/policy.html, are not included in
debian-policy/virtual-package-names-list.text.gz
(The java-common policy still claims the status PROPOSED, but both virtual
packages are alread
Ari Makela wrote:
>
> I asked because *I* didn't want to screw up my package. I've thought
> for years that Debian is in many ways the nicest OS for i386 (and of
> course for some other platforms) and when I've made packages I've
> tried to keep up the quality that Debian has. That's why I ask whe
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.5.6.0
Severity: minor
Tags: patch
--- upgrading-checklist.txt Thu Aug 30 16:59:13 2001
+++ upgrading-checklist.txt.fixed Thu Aug 30 16:58:46 2001
@@ -32,7 +32,7 @@
- Putting documentation in /usr/doc versus /usr/share/doc is now
a ``seri
>>"Antti-Juhani" == Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Antti-Juhani> On 20010830T114438-0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Flawed assumption. I think you do Debian and the policy group
>> a disservice by claiming that we shall, in the future, have such
>> little regard for copyr
On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 11:44:38AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Ari" == Ari Makela <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Ari> The file now includes GPL version 2 but probably not in future Debian
> Ari> releases. And what if my package is installed in such a future
> Ari> release? It'll have a
Manoj Srivastava writes:
> a disservice by claiming that we shall,
I feel "disservice" is rather strongly said. Well, maybe I'm a little
touchy here.
> little regard for copyrights and installed bases.
One of the many reasons I've been using Debian since version 1.2 is
that Debian does res
On 20010830T114438-0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Flawed assumption. I think you do Debian and the policy group
> a disservice by claiming that we shall, in the future, have such
> little regard for copyrights and installed bases.
You are being unfair. Most GPL software are licensed with
>>"Ari" == Ari Makela <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ari> The file now includes GPL version 2 but probably not in future Debian
Ari> releases. And what if my package is installed in such a future
Ari> release? It'll have a wrong licence.
Flawed assumption. I think you do Debian and the p
On Thu, 30 Aug 2001, Ari Makela wrote:
> The file now includes GPL version 2 but probably not in future Debian
> releases. And what if my package is installed in such a future
> release? It'll have a wrong licence.
If GPL version 2 is ever removed from common-licenses, packages which
refer to it
On 30-Aug-01, 03:12 (CDT), Ari Makela <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't like the idea of licencing my software under a licence I
> cannot know because it doesn't even exist so I tend to use GPL version
> 2.
>
> So should I just ignore the error message or should there be file
> /usr/share/co
Jonathan D. Proulx writes:
> Forever is a long time. If you refer to the file system location,
> that's part of maintaining a package.
But many packages can be installed to a older or newer versions of
Debian. That's why one cannot simply assume the file includes version
2.
> I suspect you
Jonathan D. Proulx (2001-08-30 09:47:16 -0400) :
> Is the "or later" clause part of the GPL?
No. It is suggested in the GPL, but no more.
,
| 9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions
| of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will
Hello,
Could you please direct this request to the proper party or department? We
would like to get some additional information about your business in an effort
to explore the ways that we might be able to work together. If possible, we
would like to receive your media package. If you have an
Jonathan D. Proulx writes:
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 11:12:41AM +0300, Ari Makela wrote:
> $ head -3 /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL
> GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
>Version 2, June 1991
Yes, indeed, but that's not what I ment. I'm sorry, my email was
r
On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 04:18:35PM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
:On 20010830T084026-0400, Jonathan D. Proulx wrote:
:> $ head -3 /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL
:> GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
:>Version 2, June 1991
:
:Yes, but that will probably not
On 20010830T084026-0400, Jonathan D. Proulx wrote:
> $ head -3 /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL
> GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
>Version 2, June 1991
Yes, but that will probably not be true forever.
--
%%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http:/
On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 11:12:41AM +0300, Ari Makela wrote:
:lintian complains:
:
:$ lintian -i dbmanage_1.0.1-3_i386.changes
:E: dbmanage: copyright-file-contains-full-gpl-license
:N:
:N: The copyright file /usr/share/doc//copyright contains the
:N: complete text of the GPL. It should refer t
Hello,
I've packaged a piece of my own software which is licenced under GNU
GPL version 2. I'm not yet a Debian developer but a developer is going
to advocate. One of the things he asked me to do was to ask from
debian-policy what to do in situations like this.
lintian complains:
$ lintian -i d
22 matches
Mail list logo
