Jonathan Nieder writes:
> Charles Plessy wrote:
>> Sorry for the confusion between new field and new paragraph. Still, I
>> think that we are spending a lot of time discussing refinements that
>> need to demonstrate their usefulness by being adopted independantly by
>> a broad number of package
Charles Plessy wrote:
> Sorry for the confusion between new field and new paragraph. Still, I think
> that we are spending a lot of time discussing refinements that need to
> demonstrate their usefulness by being adopted independantly by a broad number
> of package maintainers.
Stepping back a l
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 08:00:33AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > Unfortunately that would involve violating the spec. The current
> > specification requires that every paragraph be a header paragraph, a
> > Files paragraph, or a License paragraph. License-Exception paragraphs
> > are not allowe
On 25/12/12 12:34, Ximin Luo wrote:
> Example:
>
> | Files: X
> | Copyright: A
> | License: BSD-3-Clause
> | Copyright 2012 A
> | terms etc
I don't think this is the problem: if the first two lines of
/usr/share/common-licenses/BSD ("Copyright (c)... All rights reserved")
were ignored or remove
On 26/12/12 23:39, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Charles Plessy wrote:
>
>> If experimentations are blocked because the current specification does not
>> allow unspecified types of paragraphs, how about considering to relax it ?
>
> I honestly think that License-Exception stanzas already are a
> funda
5 matches
Mail list logo
