Le Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 01:27:37AM -0800, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> On Tue, Dec 08, 2009 at 09:56:29AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > I propose to apply this to DEP-5:
>
> > ### Extra fields.
>
> > Extra fields can be added to any section. It is not recommended to prefix
> > their name b
Steve Langasek writes:
> One concern I have with the current DEP5 draft is that the set of
> keywords for common licenses is very NIH.
Well, that speaks to motives (NIH) that I don't think were present. I
think it's just that the obvious clearing houses for license information
(OSI, FSF) didn't
Le Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 11:30:07PM -0800, Steve Langasek a écrit :
>
> One concern I have with the current DEP5 draft is that the set of keywords
> for common licenses is very NIH. Fedora, for example, has an existing list
> of license keywords that are widely deployed, as can be found here:
>
>
On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 11:30:07PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> One concern I have with the current DEP5 draft is that the set of keywords
> for common licenses is very NIH. Fedora, for example, has an existing list
> of license keywords that are widely deployed, as can be found here:
>
> htt
Charles Plessy writes:
> Le Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 09:57:05AM +1100, Ben Finney a écrit :
> > I've advocated making mnemonic descriptors for the particular
> > clauses, e.g. “attribution”, “no endorsement”, etc. Those have the
> > disadvantage of not being well-known, but the advantage (compared to
5 matches
Mail list logo
