On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 02:19:34PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I've committed the below patch to the dep repo on svn.debian.org.
>
> === modified file 'web/deps/dep5.mdwn'
> --- old/web/deps/dep5.mdwn2011-11-11 15:27:02 +
> +++ new/web/deps/dep5.mdwn2011-11-25 20:15:33 +
> @@ -1
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 02:19:34PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I've committed the below patch to the dep repo on svn.debian.org.
That looks fine to me too. It's a sensible compromise to having
everything specified off the short name and not putting too much
scope-creep into the short name.
wrt
I've committed the below patch to the dep repo on svn.debian.org.
=== modified file 'web/deps/dep5.mdwn'
--- old/web/deps/dep5.mdwn 2011-11-11 15:27:02 +
+++ new/web/deps/dep5.mdwn 2011-11-25 20:15:33 +
@@ -1036,12 +1036,27 @@
target="_top">many versions of the MIT licen
On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 20:03:27 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > I have no objection to this for 1.0, provided we at the same time clarify
> > that if more than one exception is in use, you need to use a custom
> > shortname instead of an ORed or ANDed list of licenses.
> >
> > Is there a consensus
On Wednesday 16 November 2011 03:08:25 Steve Langasek wrote:
> I have no objection to this for 1.0, provided we at the same time clarify
> that if more than one exception is in use, you need to use a custom
> shortname instead of an ORed or ANDed list of licenses.
>
> Is there a consensus for this
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 06:08:25PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I have no objection to this for 1.0, provided we at the same time clarify
> that if more than one exception is in use, you need to use a custom
> shortname instead of an ORed or ANDed list of licenses.
>
> Is there a consensus for t
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 09:31:05AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
>
> > Is there a concrete example where we need to support multiple exceptions ?
> >
> > If not, I propose to follow and document the current practice, which is to
> > support only one. This has the advantage that it will not be ne
* Steve Langasek , 2011-11-15, 18:08:
Is there a concrete example where we need to support multiple
exceptions?
If not, I propose to follow and document the current practice, which
is to support only one. This has the advantage that it will not be
needed to implement new functions in parsers,
On 11-11-15 at 06:08pm, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 09:31:05AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > Le Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 09:16:18AM +0900, Charles Plessy a écrit :
> > > Le Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 10:21:58PM +0200, Jakub Wilk a écrit :
>
> > > > copyright-format reads:
>
> > > > |
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 09:31:05AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 09:16:18AM +0900, Charles Plessy a écrit :
> > Le Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 10:21:58PM +0200, Jakub Wilk a écrit :
> > > copyright-format reads:
> > > | Exceptions and clarifications are signaled in plain text, b
Le Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 09:16:18AM +0900, Charles Plessy a écrit :
> Le Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 10:21:58PM +0200, Jakub Wilk a écrit :
> >
> > copyright-format reads:
> >
> > | Exceptions and clarifications are signaled in plain text, by appending
> > | "with exception" to the short name.
> >
> >
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 03:16:50PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> SPDX uses one short name per combination of license and exception. I did
> not like it at the beginning as I find it inelegant, but in the end it
> would be simpler. With that syntax, ‘GPL-2+ with OpenSSL and Font
> exceptions’ wo
Executive summary for the CCed DEP-5 parser writers (and apologises for those I
forgot): this is about how to signal multiple exceptions to a license.
Le Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 05:33:58PM -0800, Steve Langasek a écrit :
>
> You can always say GPL-2+-with-anything as a custom license name, but the
>
Steve Langasek wrote:
> However, the history of the draft shows that people are concerned
> about knowing whether *specific* common exceptions are in effect
Good point. For example, the "GPL-2 with OpenSSL exception" and
"OpenSSL" licenses are compatible, while GPL-2 and the OpenSSL
licenses are
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 09:16:18AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 10:21:58PM +0200, Jakub Wilk a écrit :
> > copyright-format reads:
> > | Exceptions and clarifications are signaled in plain text, by appending
> > | "with exception" to the short name.
> > However, it is
Charles Plessy wrote:
> I looked at how my favorite parser, config-edit, is doing with exceptions, and
> if I add a ‘OpenSSL and Font’ or an ‘OpenSSL, Font’ exception, it stops with
> error at loading…
As a workaround, "with exception" might work, making this
"GPL-2+ with OpenSSL exception with
user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
limit package debian-policy
usertags 633797 + normative
usertags 633797 + issue
thanks
Le Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 10:21:58PM +0200, Jakub Wilk a écrit :
>
> copyright-format reads:
>
> | Exceptions and clarifications are signaled in plain text, by appending
>
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.9.2.0
(liw told me that this the correct place to report bugs in DEP5
specification. If this is not the case, please blame him. :P)
copyright-format reads:
| Exceptions and clarifications are signaled in plain text, by appending
| "with exception" to the sho
18 matches
Mail list logo
