Jonathan Nieder writes:
> Markus Koschany wrote:
>> License: zlib
>> Source: https://opensource.org/licenses/Zlib
>> Example packages:
>> https://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses#The_zlib.2Flibpng_License_.28Zlib.29
> Hm. The license says
> 3. This notice may not be removed or altered from any s
Hi again,
Markus Koschany wrote:
> Let me try to explain it this way: Take src:ufoai-data or src:netbeans
> for example. Both packages ship approximately a dozen different
> licenses. I can't simply copy&paste the upstream license because I have
> to format it to make it copyright format 1.0 comp
On Wed, 13 Dec 2017 19:59:15 +0100, Markus Koschany wrote:
(Just as a side note, I'm in favour of adding more licenses to
common-licenses):
> Take a stopwatch,
> find a plain-text version of this license on the internet, format the
> file according to copyright format 1.0 and stop the time.
% ti
Am 13.12.2017 um 19:21 schrieb Jonathan Nieder:
> Markus Koschany wrote:
>
>> License: zlib
>> Source: https://opensource.org/licenses/Zlib
>> Example packages:
>> https://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses#The_zlib.2Flibpng_License_.28Zlib.29
>
> Hm. The license says
>
> 3. This notice may not be
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 07:59:15PM +0100, Markus Koschany wrote:
> No, this is entirely about our most precious resources: time and human
> beings
>
> You also have to format the license in such a way that it complies with
> copyright format 1.0. For instance that means you have to put dots on
> e
Am 13.12.2017 um 19:56 schrieb Jonathan Nieder:
> Hi,
>
> Markus Koschany wrote:
>
>> I would like to argue that disk space is no longer an issue in 2017 and
>> people with special needs (embedded systems) will most likely remove
>> /usr/share/common-licenses anyway.
>
> I agree: space on instal
Am 13.12.2017 um 19:40 schrieb Jonathan Nieder:
> Hi,
>
> Markus Koschany wrote:
>> Am 13.12.2017 um 19:10 schrieb Jonathan Nieder:
>>> Markus Koschany wrote:
>
License: AGPL-3.0
Source: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.de.html
Example packages:
https://wiki.debian.org/DF
Hi,
Markus Koschany wrote:
> I would like to argue that disk space is no longer an issue in 2017 and
> people with special needs (embedded systems) will most likely remove
> /usr/share/common-licenses anyway.
I agree: space on installation media and network transfer time are more
important than
Hi,
Markus Koschany wrote:
> Am 13.12.2017 um 19:10 schrieb Jonathan Nieder:
>> Markus Koschany wrote:
>>> License: AGPL-3.0
>>> Source: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.de.html
>>> Example packages:
>>> https://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses#GNU_AFFERO_GENERAL_PUBLIC_LICENSE_.28AGPL-3.29
>>
>
Am 13.12.2017 um 19:18 schrieb Jonathan Nieder:
> Markus Koschany wrote:
>
>> as discussed on debian-devel [1] I would like to request that more DFSG
>> licenses are added to /usr/share/common-licenses and that package
>> maintainers are allowed to reference them.
>>
>> License: EPL-1.0
>> Source:
Hi,
Am 13.12.2017 um 19:10 schrieb Jonathan Nieder:
> Hi,
>
> Markus Koschany wrote:
>
>> as discussed on debian-devel [1] I would like to request that more DFSG
>> licenses are added to /usr/share/common-licenses and that package
>> maintainers are allowed to reference them.
>>
>> License: AGPL
Markus Koschany wrote:
> License: zlib
> Source: https://opensource.org/licenses/Zlib
> Example packages:
> https://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses#The_zlib.2Flibpng_License_.28Zlib.29
Hm. The license says
3. This notice may not be removed or altered from any source distribution.
And part of 'T
Markus Koschany wrote:
> as discussed on debian-devel [1] I would like to request that more DFSG
> licenses are added to /usr/share/common-licenses and that package
> maintainers are allowed to reference them.
>
> License: OFL-1.1
> Source: https://opensource.org/licenses/OFL-1.1
> Example package
Markus Koschany wrote:
> as discussed on debian-devel [1] I would like to request that more DFSG
> licenses are added to /usr/share/common-licenses and that package
> maintainers are allowed to reference them.
>
> License: EPL-1.0
> Source: https://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-v10.html
> Example pack
Markus Koschany wrote:
> as discussed on debian-devel [1] I would like to request that more DFSG
> licenses are added to /usr/share/common-licenses and that package
> maintainers are allowed to reference them.
>
> License: CC-BY-4.0
> Source: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
> Example
Hi,
Markus Koschany wrote:
> as discussed on debian-devel [1] I would like to request that more DFSG
> licenses are added to /usr/share/common-licenses and that package
> maintainers are allowed to reference them.
>
> License: CC-BY-3.0
> Source: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
> Exa
Hi,
Markus Koschany wrote:
> as discussed on debian-devel [1] I would like to request that more DFSG
> licenses are added to /usr/share/common-licenses and that package
> maintainers are allowed to reference them.
>
> License: AGPL-3.0
> Source: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.de.html
> Exa
On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 at 23:54:01 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 09:27:30AM +, Simon McVittie wrote:
> > I think the License-Grant field is a useful addition to the format
>
> I strongly disagree with this. I think this adds more syntax without adding
> any more informat
Hello Sean,
Am 13.12.2017 um 01:31 schrieb Sean Whitton:
> Hello Markus,
>
> On Tue, Dec 12 2017, Markus Koschany wrote:
>
>> I agree that using boiler plate like this:
>>
>> | License: GPL-2+
>> | On Debian systems the full text of the GPL-2 can be found in
>> | /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2
19 matches
Mail list logo
