On Tue, 12 Dec 2017, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Markus Koschany writes:
> > We always distribute the source code along with the binary packages.
>
> This isn't true: we produce install media that contains only the
> binary packages and not the source.
While we do generate install binary-only install
Markus Koschany writes:
> Am 12.12.2017 um 03:39 schrieb Russ Allbery:
>> The binaries built from the source code are a "substantial portion of
>> the Software." We have to include the license and copyright statement
>> with the binaries, since they're a derivative work, and those packages
>> do
On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 08:52:54AM -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
> > We always distribute the source code along with the binary packages.
> > This condition would still be satisfied. If it works for Red Hat /
> > Fedora it should work for Debian too.
>
> Do you argue, then, that the act of copying
On 2017-12-12 at 08:40, Markus Koschany wrote:
> 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 st
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 any law because
>> debian/copyright i
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
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
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
> Source: https://opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php
> E
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
11 matches
Mail list logo
