Hello,
On Sat, Dec 09 2017, Bill Allombert wrote:
> What work are you referring to ?
Longer copyright files are more painful to edit.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> forcemerge 795402 883968
Bug #795402 [debian-policy] base-files: Please add Creative Commons license
texts
Bug #795402 [debian-policy] base-files: Please add Creative Commons license
texts
Marked as found in versions debian-policy/4.1.2.0.
Bug #
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> forcemerge 795402 883969
Bug #795402 [debian-policy] base-files: Please add Creative Commons license
texts
Bug #883968 [debian-policy] debian-policy: please add CC-BY-SA-3.0 to common
licenses
Bug #883969 [debian-policy] debian-policy: please ad
Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.1.2.0
Severity: normal
Hi,
as discussed on debian-devel [1] I would like to see that more DFSG
licenses are added to /usr/share/common-licenses and that package
maintainers are just allowed to reference them.
License: CC-BY-SA-4.0
Source: https://creativecommons
Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.1.2.0
Severity: normal
Hi,
as discussed on debian-devel [1] I would like to see that more DFSG
licenses are added to /usr/share/common-licenses and that package
maintainers are just allowed to reference them.
License: CC-BY-SA-3.0
Source: https://creativecommons
Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.1.2.0
Severity: normal
Hi,
as discussed on debian-devel [1] I would like to see that more DFSG
licenses are added to /usr/share/common-licenses and that package
maintainers are just allowed to reference them.
License: MIT / Expat
Source: https://opensource.org/l
On Sat, Dec 09, 2017 at 12:16:35PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> I am seeking seconds for the following patch:
>
> > diff --git a/policy/ch-source.rst b/policy/ch-source.rst
> > index 37c4442..f8f768f 100644
> > --- a/policy/ch-source.rst
> > +++ b/policy/ch-source.rst
> > @@ -686,6 +686,26 @@ even
control: severity -1 normal
control: tag -1 +patch
Hello,
I am seeking seconds for the following patch:
> diff --git a/policy/ch-source.rst b/policy/ch-source.rst
> index 37c4442..f8f768f 100644
> --- a/policy/ch-source.rst
> +++ b/policy/ch-source.rst
> @@ -686,6 +686,26 @@ even if most environ
Processing control commands:
> severity -1 normal
Bug #742364 [debian-policy] Document debian/missing-sources
Severity set to 'normal' from 'wishlist'
> tag -1 +patch
Bug #742364 [debian-policy] Document debian/missing-sources
Added tag(s) patch.
--
742364: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugrep
On Sat, Dec 09, 2017 at 11:53:51AM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Sat, Dec 09 2017, Bill Allombert wrote:
>
> > See the file tools/license-count in the policy git repo and look up
> > the debian-policy list archive for previous statistics.
>
> Thanks.
>
> > The point is that if ther
[CCing -devel, but please move discussion to -policy]
Hello Markus,
On Sat, Dec 09 2017, Markus Koschany wrote:
> Users who are facing this kind of limitations will most likely remove
> /usr/share/common-licenses, /usr/share/doc and /usr/share/man and
> maybe more already. I don't think that it
Package: debian-policy
Nowadays it's common to see stand alone license paragraphs like these:
|License: GPL-2+
| On Debian systems the full text of the GPL-2 can be found in
| /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2
or
|License: GPL-2+
| This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or mo
Hello,
On Sat, Dec 09 2017, Bill Allombert wrote:
> See the file tools/license-count in the policy git repo and look up
> the debian-policy list archive for previous statistics.
Thanks.
> The point is that if there are licenses not in common-licenses that
> are much more common than CC0, it wou
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> block 882629 by 882628
Bug #882629 [systemd] systemd: debian/copyright refers to the CC0 license by URL
882629 was not blocked by any bugs.
882629 was not blocking any bugs.
Added blocking bug(s) of 882629: 859649 and 882628
> block 882630 by 8826
On Sat, Dec 09, 2017 at 10:26:26AM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Hello Bill,
>
> On Sat, Dec 09 2017, Bill Allombert wrote:
>
> > So, what is the percentage of packages under this license ? This has
> > always been the criterium used to put it in common-licenses.
>
> Could you say more, please?
Hello Bill,
On Sat, Dec 09 2017, Bill Allombert wrote:
> So, what is the percentage of packages under this license ? This has
> always been the criterium used to put it in common-licenses.
Could you say more, please? What was the percentage used in the past?
We might want to revise that perce
16 matches
Mail list logo
