Just forwarding to bug#694883 ("please clarify the recommended form for
public domain files") for easy reference.
Thanks,
Jonathan
--- Begin Message ---
On 03/02/14 20:55, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Daniel Pocock wrote:
>
>> I've only come across one package which included public-domain material
On 03/02/14 21:58, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Daniel Pocock writes:
>
>> There are cases where I would have used it and I believe that
>> recognising people's work (even if they have assigned their rights) is
>> an important way of showing our thanks and acknowledgment to those who
>> develop free s
Daniel Pocock writes:
> There are cases where I would have used it and I believe that
> recognising people's work (even if they have assigned their rights) is
> an important way of showing our thanks and acknowledgment to those who
> develop free software, and having a dedicated field makes them
On 03/02/14 20:55, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Daniel Pocock wrote:
>
>> I've only come across one package which included public-domain material
>> so far. In this case, I put a note about the author in the comments.
>
> Yep - that works, too.
>
> [...]
>> One risk of not having this extra field
Daniel Pocock wrote:
> I've only come across one package which included public-domain material
> so far. In this case, I put a note about the author in the comments.
Yep - that works, too.
[...]
> One risk of not having this extra field is that we could accumulate
> excessive things in the Copy
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> severity 678607 important
Bug #678607 [debian-policy] "original authors" in 12.5 is unclear
Severity set to 'important' from 'normal'
>
End of message, stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
678607: http://bugs.de
On 03/02/14 20:36, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Daniel Pocock wrote:
>
>> Just to clarify, I do not believe that maintaining this field should be
>> obligatory
>>
>> It should be an optional field
>>
>> Defining it formally in the standard and having some examples will help
>> emphasize the differen
Daniel Pocock wrote:
> Just to clarify, I do not believe that maintaining this field should be
> obligatory
>
> It should be an optional field
>
> Defining it formally in the standard and having some examples will help
> emphasize the difference between what people should put in the Copyright
> fi
On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 08:22:25PM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> Just to clarify, I do not believe that maintaining this field should be
> obligatory
> It should be an optional field
> Defining it formally in the standard and having some examples will help
> emphasize the difference between what
On 03/02/14 20:17, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> severity 737559 wishlist
> user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
> usertags 737559 = normative issue
> quit
>
> Hi Daniel,
>
> Daniel Pocock wrote:
>
>> Author and copyright holder are not always the same person/entity.
> [...]
>> License: GPL2
>> C
severity 737559 wishlist
user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
usertags 737559 = normative issue
quit
Hi Daniel,
Daniel Pocock wrote:
> Author and copyright holder are not always the same person/entity.
[...]
> License: GPL2
> Copyright: 2014, Acme, Inc http://acme.example.org
> Author: Bob, ht
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> severity 737559 wishlist
Bug #737559 [debian-policy] copyright-format: author != copyright, add an
author field?
Severity set to 'wishlist' from 'normal'
> user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (
Package: debian-policy
Author and copyright holder are not always the same person/entity.
E.g. the work may be authored by Bob but the copyright is assigned to
his employer Acme, Inc, e.g.
License: GPL2
Copyright: 2014, Acme, Inc http://acme.example.org
Author: Bob, http://example.org/bob
For c
13 matches
Mail list logo
