Am 03.08.2018 um 00:59 schrieb Russ Allbery:
> Markus Koschany writes:
>
>> You appear more concerned about one parser, Lintian, than about the
>> human maintainers who have to update d/copyright again. You argue that
>> the maintainers have to update d/copyright anywa
Am 02.08.2018 um 16:27 schrieb gregor herrmann:
> On Thu, 02 Aug 2018 15:13:26 +0800, Markus Koschany wrote:
>
>> Nothing will break because no tool besides Lintian checks
>> debian/copyright for copyright format 1.0 compatibility.
>
> This is not correct.
>
>
Am 02.08.2018 um 12:43 schrieb Russ Allbery:
> Markus Koschany writes:
>
>> Please keep it simple. I disagree that we would need a version bump of
>> copyright format 1.0 which had to be documented in every
>> debian/copyright file again by changing the Format field. A s
FYI: Here is what one of the ftp-masters, Jörg Jaspert, wrote in
response to my proposal to reduce boilerplate in debian/copyright.
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=883950#80
I believe it shows the generally tendency that they are in favor of the
proposal.
Regards,
Markus
si
First of all let me thank Sean for moving this issue forward.
Let me also reiterate what the whole point of this bug report is again.
The bug reporter, myself and others would like to reduce the unnecessary
amount of boilerplate in debian/copyright. The brackets are not the
important part of our p
Hello,
Am 29.12.2017 um 10:18 schrieb Sean Whitton:
> user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
> usertags 883950 = normative discussion
> thanks
>
> Hello,
>
> On Thu, Dec 28 2017, Markus Koschany wrote:
>
>> the Policy editors request your attention and a de
Hi,
Am 30.12.2017 um 01:24 schrieb Simon McVittie:
> On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 at 22:24:23 +0100, Markus Koschany wrote:
>> Am 29.12.2017 um 00:06 schrieb Jonathan Nieder:
>>> Using 'Files: *' when different files are under different licenses
>>> sacrifices precisi
Am 29.12.2017 um 23:35 schrieb Russ Allbery:
> Markus Koschany writes:
>
>> Ok I can see the misunderstanding now. The above statement would be
>> incorrect for freeorion because it translates to:
>
>> You are allowed to use the files under GPL-2 and Permissive-
Am 28.12.2017 um 23:10 schrieb Russ Allbery:
> Markus Koschany writes:
>
>> Why do we add the BSD license to common-licenses but not MIT and zlib?
>
> I'm not sure why the BSD license was included in common-licenses
> originally. My theory was that it was t
Am 29.12.2017 um 00:06 schrieb Jonathan Nieder:
[...]
> Using 'Files: *' when different files are under different licenses
> sacrifices precision, but it doesn't sacrifice accuracy. You can say
>
> Files: *
> License: GPL-2 and Permissive-License-1 and Permissive-License-2 and ...
>
> Or you c
Am 28.12.2017 um 22:19 schrieb Jonathan Nieder:
> Hi,
>
> Markus Koschany wrote:
>
>> I still have to quote license texts verbatim. The only
>> "advantage" of the old format is that I can format d/copyright more
>> freely but the same informat
Am 28.12.2017 um 20:39 schrieb Jonathan Nieder:
> Markus Koschany wrote:
>> Am 28.12.2017 um 11:21 schrieb Bill Allombert:
>>> On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 01:56:44PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>>>> Jonathan Nieder writes:
>
>>>>> Seconded.
>>>
Dear FTP team,
the Policy editors request your attention and a decision regarding
Debian bug #883950: debian-policy: allow specifying common licenses with
only the identifier.
Summary of the proposal
===
Situation
=
Debian Policy 12.5 "Copyright information" declares
Am 27.12.2017 um 22:55 schrieb Russ Allbery:
> Jonathan Nieder writes:
>> 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
>>> ma
Am 28.12.2017 um 11:21 schrieb Bill Allombert:
> On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 01:56:44PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Jonathan Nieder writes:
>>> Markus Koschany wrote:
>>
>>>> as discussed on debian-devel [1] I would like to request that more DFSG
>>
Hi,
Am 18.12.2017 um 23:37 schrieb Jonathan Nieder:
> Hi Markus,
>
> Markus Koschany wrote:
>> Am 16.12.2017 um 15:55 schrieb Sean Whitton:
>>> On Wed, Dec 13 2017, Markus Koschany wrote:
>
>>>> If the Policy editors cannot make a decision with regards
Am 16.12.2017 um 15:55 schrieb Sean Whitton:
> Hello Markus,
>
> On Wed, Dec 13 2017, Markus Koschany wrote:
>
>>> This would mean that we are not explicitly stating in our d/copyright
>>> file the difference between GPL-2 and GPL-2+. To learn of the
>>>
Am 14.12.2017 um 09:03 schrieb Dominique Dumont:
> On Wed, 13 Dec 2017 20:25:22 +0100 Bill Allombert wrote:
>> Otherwise we could write a script to generate the copyright file.
>
> That's 'cme update dpkg-copyright' which does 95% of the required work.
>
> See
> https://github.com/dod38fr/confi
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 s
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
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
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.
>>
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
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
Hi,
thanks for reporting. I also intended to make such a proposal and I had
briefly mentioned it in bug #883966. [1]
The reason why the short form is allowed is because of Debian Policy 12.5
"Packages distributed under the Apache license (version 2.0), the
Artistic license, the GNU GPL (versions
Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.1.2.0
Severity: normal
Hi,
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/licens
Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.1.2.0
Severity: normal
Hi,
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: zlib
Source: https://opensource.org/licenses/
Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.1.2.0
Severity: normal
Hi,
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
Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.1.2.0
Severity: normal
Hi,
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
Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.1.2.0
Severity: normal
Hi,
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
Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.1.2.0
Severity: normal
Hi,
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
Am 12.12.2017 um 03:39 schrieb Russ Allbery:
> 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 a
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 main
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.
&g
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
> Yes, we still install all binaries for games to /usr/games and static
> content to /usr/share/games. The use is optional according to the FHS
> but the Policy recommends the use of /usr/games and really questioned or
^^^
oops, forgot a "nob
Hello Charles,
On 14.02.2014 00:46, Charles Plessy wrote:
[...]
> In his original wording, Josselin proposed to add at the end of section 9.6
> one
> sentence pointing to the Debian menu as an option. Here it is, rephrased to
> replace “legacy window managers” by “window managers that do not sup
Hello Charles,
On 02.02.2014 14:00, Charles Plessy wrote:
[...]
> I think that the absence of a feature in the Debian Policy is not a good
> justification for refusing a patch that is not invasive and does not require
> further attention.
>
> We should assume people's good faith on both sides. B
Charles Plessy wrote:
[...]
> I have read a lot of scepticism about the Debian menu in this thread, and no
> actual support for it. Perhaps I was trying to be too consensual and proposed
> an over-complicated solution while it is clear that the FreeDesktop system is
> superior.
Hello Charles,
I
41 matches
Mail list logo
