On to, 2010-10-28 at 17:52 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Craig Small writes:
>
> > This is the collecting part I hope is cleared up. Do something like
> > grep -i copyright `find . -name '*.[ch]'`
> > over a non trivial project, especially one that has been around for
> > years and you get all so
Craig Small writes:
> This is the collecting part I hope is cleared up. Do something like
> grep -i copyright `find . -name '*.[ch]'`
> over a non trivial project, especially one that has been around for
> years and you get all sorts of wonderful combinations.
> The globbing Charles suggested a
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 12:35:23PM +0100, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> On to, 2010-10-28 at 19:58 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > Would ‘Copyright 2008, 2009, 2010 John Smith, Angela Watts’ be also
> > acceptable ?
> > Especially if the situation is:
> >
> > Copyright 2008 John Smith
> > Copy
On to, 2010-10-28 at 19:58 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> It may be confusing that the header paragraph Copyright field has not the same
> format as the files paragraph Copyright fields (‘line based list’). Perpaps
> people writing parsers may comment on this as well…
That was a bug. Fixed.
> Sin
Le Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 11:15:19AM +0100, Lars Wirzenius a écrit :
Hi Lars, Russ, everybody…
I have two comments and a question:
> === modified file 'dep5.mdwn'
> --- dep5.mdwn 2010-09-23 12:40:46 +
> +++ dep5.mdwn 2010-10-28 10:14:33 +
> @@ -167,6 +167,15 @@
> from a version known
This is continuing the discussion from 2.5 months ago.
On la, 2010-08-14 at 10:04 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Steve Langasek writes:
> > On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 04:13:57PM +1000, Craig Small wrote:
>
> >> We should say explicitly that the copyright field is a rollup of all
> >> relevant copyrig
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 10:04:12AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Steve Langasek writes:
> > On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 04:13:57PM +1000, Craig Small wrote:
> >> We should say explicitly that the copyright field is a rollup of all
> >> relevant copyright declarations for that group of files, yes.
> >
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 05:45:12PM +1000, Craig Small wrote:
> > Attached is a patch that tries to clarify this in the DEP itself. Do you
> > think it does an adequate job of this? If so, given that this is a
> It certainly makes it more clearer.
Ok, committed to trunk, thanks!
> Something arou
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 06:00:12PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 05:45:12PM +1000, Craig Small wrote:
> >If this does make it in, someone should write a file checking
> >program to check the globbing. returns
> >
>
> Except that DEP5 only covers source.
> Would still m
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 10:04:12AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> The Copyright field collects all relevant copyright notices for the
> files of this stanza. Not all copyright notices may apply to every
> individual file, and years of publication for one copyright holder may
> be gat
On la, 2010-08-14 at 10:04 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Steve Langasek writes:
...
> How about this (written without looking at the detailed wording of the
> document, so may need some massaging to fit into the flow):
FWIW, I like Steve's patch and Russ's addition to it. Anyone object to
them?
Steve Langasek writes:
> On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 04:13:57PM +1000, Craig Small wrote:
>> We should say explicitly that the copyright field is a rollup of all
>> relevant copyright declarations for that group of files, yes.
> Russ, can you suggest some language around this? "rollup" just conjure
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 05:45:12PM +1000, Craig Small wrote:
If this does make it in, someone should write a file checking program
to check the globbing. returns
Except that DEP5 only covers source.
Would still make sense to have a program doing similar for source:
returns
- Jonas
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 10:39:38PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Indeed, there seems to be a quite common misconception that the presence of
> syntax in DEP-5 that lets you list the copyright and license of individual
> files means that it is a *requirement* that you list the license status with
>
Hi Craig,
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 04:13:57PM +1000, Craig Small wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 12:09:44PM +1200, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> > On pe, 2010-08-13 at 09:08 +1000, Craig Small wrote:
> > That would indicate there is a bug in the DEP-5 spec. It is, in my very
> > non-humble opinion, not
15 matches
Mail list logo
