Dear Yao,
On Tue, Dec 12 2017, Yao Wei wrote:
> Built-Using doesn't contain copyright notice and license info, for
> example Expat has the following clause:
>
> The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be
> included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
Okay,
Markus Koschany writes:
> I don't want to open another can of worms yet but I believe even if
> someone changed this phrase and we simply stated MIT as license in
> debian/copyright we still wouldn't violate any law because
> debian/copyright is something Debian specific which we impose on
> ours
Hi Sean,
Built-Using doesn't contain copyright notice and license info, for example
Expat has the following clause:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in
all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
Yao Wei
On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 at 09:47 Sean Whitton wr
Hello Yao,
On Tue, Dec 12 2017, Yao Wei wrote:
> My problem is roughly case 1 (and for me, to solve case 2). However as
> a requirement of some licenses the file must come with the copyright
> notice, and I am afraid if generates files which it's source comes
> from another package cannot comply
Hi Sean,
My problem is roughly case 1 (and for me, to solve case 2). However as a
requirement of some licenses the file must come with the copyright notice,
and I am afraid if generates files which it's source comes from another
package cannot comply with such requirements.
The generated file ins
Hello Yao,
On Mon, Dec 11 2017, Yao Wei wrote:
> Files-Binary would be package name and file path to the files which its
> copyright is not in source package but in binary package. For example:
>
> Files-Binary: package-a-data, usr/share/package-a-data/file-in-question
> Copyright:2038 J
Am 11.12.2017 um 18:44 schrieb Russ Allbery:
> Markus Koschany writes:
>
>> I have been working on ~500 packages during the past five years and I
>> have never seen a package that used a different version of this license.
>
> That's surprising, since I maintain a package that has three different
Markus Koschany writes:
> I have been working on ~500 packages during the past five years and I
> have never seen a package that used a different version of this license.
That's surprising, since I maintain a package that has three different
versions just in that one package. Are you sure that
Am 11.12.2017 um 04:32 schrieb Russ Allbery:
> Markus Koschany writes:
>
>> 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
>> Sou
9 matches
Mail list logo
