Steve Langasek writes:
> I don't think that should be legal either however; we allow "extra
> fields" to be added to any paragraph, but I don't believe the intent is
> to allow *defined* fields to be used in paragraphs where they are not
> specified to be permitted - only to allow new field names
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 12:19:18PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> I forward here Dominique's comment from ‘http://bugs.debian.org/642833#66’.
> (see also the next messages in that thread).
> Le Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 04:21:07PM +0200, Dominique Dumont a écrit :
> > Consider the following (admitedly
On 18/12/11 20:56, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Ximin Luo wrote:
>
>> the current DEP5 supports this and has it as an explicit example.
>
> Relevant wording:
>
> Section "Paragraphs", subsection "Stand-alone License Paragraph" says:
>
> Where a set of files are dual (tri, etc) licensed, or wh
Ximin Luo wrote:
> OK, understood. I will take a look at creating a patch for
> copyright-format.xml
> like you did. However, I think I would prefer using an explicit grammar
> instead
> (e.g. the sort that programming language specifications use), because that
> leads to clearer thinking and le
Ximin Luo wrote:
> the current DEP5 supports this and has it as an explicit example.
Relevant wording:
Section "Paragraphs", subsection "Stand-alone License Paragraph" says:
Where a set of files are dual (tri, etc) licensed, or when the
same license occurs multiple times, you ca
On 18/12/11 17:52, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 12:24:03AM -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>>> I disagree strongly. The cost of giving maintainers *different* ways to
>>> represent the license status is much higher than the cost of requiring
>>> maintainers to separately reproduce
Steve Langasek wrote:
> I think this is perfectly valid:
>
> Files: *
> Copyright: The Man in the Moon, 2007
> License: GPL-2+ with OpenSSL exception
>
> License: GPL-2+ with OpenSSL exception
> This program is free software [...] as a special exception, [...]
> On Debian systems, [...]
>
> Perh
On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 12:24:03AM -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> > I disagree strongly. The cost of giving maintainers *different* ways to
> > represent the license status is much higher than the cost of requiring
> > maintainers to separately reproduce license headers for components that are
>
8 matches
Mail list logo
