"Jonathan Carter (highvoltage)" writes:
> On 10/02/2013 03:14, Paul Wise wrote:
>> My advice would just to put "Copyright 2013 Thomas Koch" and a
>> DFSG-free license, anything else would be more effort on your part.
> I've considered using "Copyright 2013 Debian Project" for the licensing
> of
On 10/02/2013 03:14, Paul Wise wrote:
My advice would just to put "Copyright 2013 Thomas Koch" and a
DFSG-free license, anything else would be more effort on your part.
I've considered using "Copyright 2013 Debian Project" for the licensing
of packaging that's intended to go into Debian. What
Paul Wise writes:
> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 6:33 AM, Charles Plessy wrote:
>> I share the same feeling and in some of my latest packages, I simply
>> make no mention of copyright for my contributions, so that they are
>> distributed under the same terms as the whole.
> It sounds like you are con
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 6:33 AM, Charles Plessy wrote:
> I share the same feeling and in some of my latest packages, I simply make no
> mention of copyright for my contributions, so that they are distributed under
> the same terms as the whole.
It sounds like you are confusing copyright holders w
The Debian Project is not a legal entity so you can't assign copyright
to it. See the replies about SPI/FSF/etc though.
If you are contributing to copyleft projects, it is important to have
diverse copyright holders to prevent converting projects to
proprietary licenses. The package you are contri
Le Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 05:23:59PM +0100, Thomas Koch a écrit :
>
> I've no interest to be the copyright
> holder. I'd much rather like to write "Copyright 2013 The Debian Project".
> (Actually I'm totally annoyed by anything related to copyright...)
Hi Thomas,
I share the same feeling and in
Hi Moray,
Moray Allan wrote:
There's been some discussion elsewhere about how young people's
experience of computers has changed over the years, and how this might
interact with our success in recruiting young people into Debian. I
would estimate that the conversation focused on 16-20 year-old
On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 11:20:17AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Doesn't Debian as a whole also have nearly as many assets as all other
> projects in the Software Freedom Conservancy put together?
In terms of reserves, it might be. But in terms of expenses / revenue
they're way more active than we
Stefano Zacchiroli writes:
> Thanks Brian. As a matter of fact, I discuss with Bradley (Conservancy's
> Executive Director) fairly regularly and I've in the past discussed with
> him the possibilities of benefiting of SF Conservancy services as Debian
> Project. The problem is that SF Conservancy
On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 01:00:27PM -0500, Brian Gupta wrote:
> It may also be worth reaching out to the Software Freedom Conservancy
> if this turns out to be out of scope for SPI
> http://sfconservancy.org/members/current/ (If I recall the SFLC helped
> get them off the ground, and they were found
On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 05:23:59PM +0100, Thomas Koch wrote:
>> I'm currently hacking on the maven-repo-helper package. The source code
>> contains copyright statements from the original author. Now when I add
>> classes
>> it would be
On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 05:23:59PM +0100, Thomas Koch wrote:
> I'm currently hacking on the maven-repo-helper package. The source code
> contains copyright statements from the original author. Now when I add
> classes
> it would be logical to add "Copyright 2013 Thomas Koch".
>
> But I don't se
Hi,
I'm currently hacking on the maven-repo-helper package. The source code
contains copyright statements from the original author. Now when I add classes
it would be logical to add "Copyright 2013 Thomas Koch".
But I don't see any sense in this. I've no interest to be the copyright
holder. I'
13 matches
Mail list logo
