On Tue, 29 Jun 2010, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Russ Allbery writes:
>
> > I therefore propose adding GPL version 1 to the list of licenses said by
> > Policy to be in common-licenses and asking Santiago to include a copy in
> > base-files. I'm not including a diff since it would just create merge
>
Russ Allbery writes:
> I therefore propose adding GPL version 1 to the list of licenses said by
> Policy to be in common-licenses and asking Santiago to include a copy in
> base-files. I'm not including a diff since it would just create merge
> conflicts with the BSD diff proposed earlier today
On Mon, 2010-06-28 at 10:58 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Andrew McMillan writes:
> > On Fri, 2010-06-11 at 11:35 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
>
> >> Ok, I agree that it would a good idea to include GPL-1 in common-licenses
> >> because of the high number of packages still using it.
>
> > I'm sorr
Andrew McMillan writes:
> On Fri, 2010-06-11 at 11:35 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
>> Ok, I agree that it would a good idea to include GPL-1 in common-licenses
>> because of the high number of packages still using it.
> I'm sorry, but I disagree, for the time being. I do not believe that
> large
Santiago Vila writes:
> Then we usually add this little blurb:
> On Debian GNU/Linux systems, the complete text of the GNU General
> Public License can be found in `/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL'.
> which is an addon to the previous paragraph, so it's for informational
> purposes as well.
> T
Andrew McMillan writes:
> On Fri, 2010-06-11 at 11:35 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
>> Ok, I agree that it would a good idea to include GPL-1 in
>> common-licenses because of the high number of packages still using it.
> I'm sorry, but I disagree, for the time being. I do not believe that
> large
On Fri, 2010-06-11 at 14:40 +0200, gregor herrmann wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 00:25:57 +1200, Andrew McMillan wrote:
>
> > If the code is v1-or-later then a trivial fork (by the original
> > developer) is able to relicense it as v2-or-later or v3-or-later. If
> > the original developer is unhap
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 00:25:57 +1200, Andrew McMillan wrote:
> If the code is v1-or-later then a trivial fork (by the original
> developer) is able to relicense it as v2-or-later or v3-or-later. If
> the original developer is unhappy with doing that, then they do have
> uncommon licensing desires.
On 11.06.2010 14:25, Andrew McMillan wrote:
If the code is v1-or-later then a trivial fork (by the original
developer) is able to relicense it as v2-or-later or v3-or-later. If
the original developer is unhappy with doing that, then they do have
uncommon licensing desires.
It would be illegal
On Fri, 2010-06-11 at 14:14 +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
>
> Yes for new code, but old code cannot be relicensed easily:
> all authors should agree, but GPLv1 is very old, in periods
> where contribution did not have an email and "fix" (live-long)
> email address was not common.
It is:
(a)
On 11.06.2010 13:16, Andrew McMillan wrote:
On Fri, 2010-06-11 at 11:35 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
Ok, I agree that it would a good idea to include GPL-1 in common-licenses
because of the high number of packages still using it.
I'm sorry, but I disagree, for the time being. I do not believe
On Fri, 2010-06-11 at 11:35 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
>
> Ok, I agree that it would a good idea to include GPL-1 in common-licenses
> because of the high number of packages still using it.
I'm sorry, but I disagree, for the time being. I do not believe that
large numbers of packages are delibe
On Thu, 10 Jun 2010, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Given that, while I'm very sympathetic to Santiago's argument, I also
> think that we should be able to represent in packages their upstream
> licensing statement and not be implicitly relicensing them under later
> versions of the GPL, and without includ
-=| gregor herrmann, Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 12:50:36AM +0200 |=-
> On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 14:54:45 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > I therefore propose adding GPL version 1 to the list of licenses
> > said by
> > Policy to be in common-licenses and asking Santiago to include a copy in
> > base-files. I'
On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 14:54:45 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Given that, while I'm very sympathetic to Santiago's argument, I also
> think that we should be able to represent in packages their upstream
> licensing statement and not be implicitly relicensing them under later
> versions of the GPL,
A
Santiago Vila writes:
> On Sun, 5 Aug 2007, Sam Hocevar wrote:
>>There are still many packages that mention the GPL version 1 in
>> their copyright file (around 350). Many Perl packages, but also Perl
>> itself and widespread things like sed, joe, cvs, dict...
>>There are also countless
On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 01:28:22PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
>>There are still many packages that mention the GPL version 1 in
>> their copyright file (around 350). Many Perl packages, but also
>> Perl itself and widespread things like sed, joe, cvs, dict...
Nitpick: sed says GPLv2 or later
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reassign 436105 debian-policy
Bug#436105: suggestion to add GPL-1 as a common licence
Bug reassigned from package `base-files' to `debian-policy'.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Deb
reassign 436105 debian-policy
thanks
On Sun, 5 Aug 2007, Sam Hocevar wrote:
> Package: base-files
> Version: 4.0.0
> Severity: wishlist
>
>There are still many packages that mention the GPL version 1 in their
> copyright file (around 350). Many Perl packages, but also Perl itself
> and wides
19 matches
Mail list logo
