Bug#855347: marked as done (libopenshot: Incomplete debian/copyright?)

Your message dated Wed, 12 Jul 2017 15:00:34 + with message-id and subject line Bug#855347: fixed in libopenshot 0.1.7+ds1-1 has caused the Debian Bug report #855347, regarding libopenshot: Incomplete debian/copyright? to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been

Bug#856647: marked as done (libbluray: Incomplete debian/copyright?)

Your message dated Sat, 04 Mar 2017 10:34:45 + with message-id and subject line Bug#856647: fixed in libbluray 1:1.0.0-2 has caused the Debian Bug report #856647, regarding libbluray: Incomplete debian/copyright? to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt

Bug#856647: libbluray: Incomplete debian/copyright?

Source: libbluray Version: 1:1.0.0-1 Severity: serious Justication: Policy 12.5 X-Debbugs-CC: Sebastian Ramacher Hi, I just ACCEPTed libbluray from NEW but noticed it was missing attribution in debian/copyright for at least Oren Ben-Kiki, Diego Petteno, xine project, etc. (This is not

Bug#855478: marked as done (x265: Incomplete debian/copyright?)

Your message dated Thu, 23 Feb 2017 16:18:42 + with message-id and subject line Bug#855478: fixed in x265 2.3-2 has caused the Debian Bug report #855478, regarding x265: Incomplete debian/copyright? to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this

Bug#855478: x265: Incomplete debian/copyright?

Source: x265 Version: 2.3-1 Severity: serious Justication: Policy 12.5 X-Debbugs-CC: Sebastian Ramacher Hi, I just ACCEPTed x265 from NEW but noticed it was missing attribution in debian/copyright for at least: source/cmake/FindNuma.cmake:17:# Copyright (c) 2015 Steve Borho source/cmake

Bug#855347: libopenshot: Incomplete debian/copyright?

On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 13:20:28 +1300 Chris Lamb wrote: > I just ACCEPTed libopenshot from NEW but noticed it was missing > attribution in debian/copyright for at least: > > include/DecklinkInput.h:8: * Copyright (c) 2009 Blackmagic Design > include/DecklinkOutput.h:8: * Cop

Bug#855347: libopenshot: Incomplete debian/copyright?

Source: libopenshot Version: 0.1.3+ds1-1 Severity: serious Justication: Policy 12.5 X-Debbugs-CC: Ghislain Antony Vaillant Hi, I just ACCEPTed libopenshot from NEW but noticed it was missing attribution in debian/copyright for at least: include/DecklinkInput.h:8: * Copyright (c) 2009

Bug#783191: cdbs: allow reusing debian/copyright Files-Excluded for get-orig-source

EB_UPSTREAM_REPACKAGE_EXCLUDES += ./windows/**.rc >> >> # pure garbage in upstream tarball >> DEB_UPSTREAM_REPACKAGE_EXCLUDES += .DS_Store >> >> # sources not in prefered form of modification >> DEB_UPSTREAM_REPACKAGE_EXCLUDES += ./waf >> >&

Bug#771126: libav/tests/lena.pnm: also not mentioned in debian/copyright

Hi Sebastian, Quoting Sebastian Ramacher (2014-12-30 18:01:24) > On 2014-12-02 15:31:39, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: >>> Jonas, would you mind taking over from here and upload >>> https://libav.org/releases/libav-11.1.tar.xz >>> >>> to unstable? >> >> I don't mind doing the technical work of packagin

Bug#771126: libav/tests/lena.pnm: also not mentioned in debian/copyright

On 2014-12-02 15:31:39, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > Jonas, would you mind taking over from here and upload > > https://libav.org/releases/libav-11.1.tar.xz > > > > to unstable? > > I don't mind doing the technical work of packaging, but prefer if > someone else takes to dialogue with release tea

Bug#771126: Bug#771191: Bug#771126: libav/tests/lena.pnm: also not mentioned in debian/copyright

Quoting Jonas Smedegaard (2014-12-03 11:33:17) > Quoting Fabian Greffrath (2014-12-03 08:56:41) >> Am Dienstag, den 02.12.2014, 23:29 +0100 schrieb Bastien ROUCARIES: >>> And offencive (sexist) for 50% of the population the women... >> >> Now it's getting really ridiculous. Gosh, it's a picture of

Bug#771126: Bug#771191: Bug#771126: libav/tests/lena.pnm: also not mentioned in debian/copyright

Quoting Fabian Greffrath (2014-12-03 08:56:41) > Am Dienstag, den 02.12.2014, 23:29 +0100 schrieb Bastien ROUCARIES: >> And offencive (sexist) for 50% of the population the women... > > Now it's getting really ridiculous. Gosh, it's a picture of a woman! I disagree with you. Honestly, when you m

Bug#771126: Bug#771191: Bug#771126: Bug#771191: Bug#771126: libav/tests/lena.pnm: also not mentioned in debian/copyright

Fabian Greffrath writes: > Am Dienstag, den 02.12.2014, 23:29 +0100 schrieb Bastien ROUCARIES: >> And offencive (sexist) for 50% of the population the women... > Now it's getting really ridiculous. Gosh, it's a picture of a woman! Er, no, it's not just a picture of a woman. It's a cropped Pla

Bug#771126: Bug#771191: Bug#771126: libav/tests/lena.pnm: also not mentioned in debian/copyright

Am Dienstag, den 02.12.2014, 23:29 +0100 schrieb Bastien ROUCARIES: > And offencive (sexist) for 50% of the population the women... Now it's getting really ridiculous. Gosh, it's a picture of a woman! - Fabian ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing li

Bug#771126: Bug#771191: Bug#771126: libav/tests/lena.pnm: also not mentioned in debian/copyright

Le 2 déc. 2014 14:15, "Reinhard Tartler" a écrit : > > On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 1:34 AM, Niels Thykier wrote: > > Control: tags -1 -wheezy-ignore > > > > On 2014-11-27 23:23, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > >> Quoting Niels Thykier (2014-11-27 22:14:25) > >>> [...] > >> > >> In prior similar bugreport <

Bug#771126: libav/tests/lena.pnm: also not mentioned in debian/copyright

Quoting Reinhard Tartler (2014-12-02 14:11:19) >> On 2014-11-27 23:23, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: >>> In prior similar bugreport - >>> referenced from - distribution >>> is documented as permitted only "for research and educati

Bug#771126: libav/tests/lena.pnm: also not mentioned in debian/copyright

On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 1:34 AM, Niels Thykier wrote: > Control: tags -1 -wheezy-ignore > > On 2014-11-27 23:23, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: >> Quoting Niels Thykier (2014-11-27 22:14:25) >>> [...] >> >> In prior similar bugreport - >> referenced from

Bug#771126: libav/tests/lena.pnm: also not mentioned in debian/copyright

Control: tags -1 -wheezy-ignore On 2014-11-27 23:23, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > Quoting Niels Thykier (2014-11-27 22:14:25) >> [...] > > In prior similar bugreport - > referenced from - distribution is > documented as permit

Processed: Re: Bug#771126: libav/tests/lena.pnm: also not mentioned in debian/copyright

Processing control commands: > tags -1 -wheezy-ignore Bug #771126 [src:libav] libav/lena.pnm: non-DFSG free + not mentioned in copyright Removed tag(s) wheezy-ignore. -- 771126: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=771126 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with

Bug#771126: libav/tests/lena.pnm: also not mentioned in debian/copyright

/me sings "happy birthday to you" and sighs. and q.e.d. too, FWIW, which is nothing. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http

Bug#771126: libav/tests/lena.pnm: also not mentioned in debian/copyright

Quoting Niels Thykier (2014-11-27 22:14:25) > FTR, I believe Holger is referring to [1]. At first glance, it seems > to mostly apply to this particular case. > > I say mostly because it is not immediately clear to me that we got an > exact license (combined with "... and there is *no doubt about

Bug#771126: libav/tests/lena.pnm: also not mentioned in debian/copyright

On 2014-11-27 12:46, Holger Levsen wrote: > On Donnerstag, 27. November 2014, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: >>> control: tags -1 + wheezy-ignore >> Are you part of the release team? > > No, but the release team is explicitly happy with *me* tagging stuff wheezy- > ignore following guidelines discussed o

Bug#771126: libav/tests/lena.pnm: also not mentioned in debian/copyright

> Fun idea :-) > > >> I don't really care about the licensing. Is the declaration in the >> commit message OK? How to declare that in debian/copyright? > > I might get away with such custom set of licensing terms, but to ease > processing (if not by lawyers in a later

Bug#771126: libav/tests/lena.pnm: also not mentioned in debian/copyright

on in the > commit message OK? How to declare that in debian/copyright? I might get away with such custom set of licensing terms, but to ease processing (if not by lawyers in a later dispute then at least by fellow distro maintainers wanting to categorize, identify, verify etc.) it is recommended

Bug#771126: libav/tests/lena.pnm: also not mentioned in debian/copyright

In order to address this, I've proposed to replace lena.pnm with a new image, taken by me, at https://github.com/libav/libav/pull/17 I don't really care about the licensing. Is the declaration in the commit message OK? How to declare that in debian/copyright? -- regards,

Bug#771126: libav/tests/lena.pnm: also not mentioned in debian/copyright

On Donnerstag, 27. November 2014, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > control: tags -1 + wheezy-ignore > Are you part of the release team? No, but the release team is explicitly happy with *me* tagging stuff wheezy- ignore following guidelines discussed on debian-release. the conclusion there has been: (

Bug#771126: libav/tests/lena.pnm: also not mentioned in debian/copyright

Quoting Jonas Smedegaard (2014-11-27 12:15:13) > Quoting Holger Levsen (2014-11-27 11:25:05) > > control: tags -1 + wheezy-ignore [...] > Why did you retitle? What was the purpose of your mail? > > Seems the only actual sensible action was ignoring for the next > release. Please elaborate on yo

Bug#771126: libav/tests/lena.pnm: also not mentioned in debian/copyright

Quoting Holger Levsen (2014-11-27 11:25:05) > control: tags -1 + wheezy-ignore Are you part of the release team? > first of all, the file in question is libav-11/tests/lena.pnm No, path (inside the source) is "tests/lena.pnm". > second, as referred in the mail referred to by the original bugr

Bug#771126: libav/tests/lena.pnm: also not mentioned in debian/copyright

ge is 512x512, the image in libav is 256x245). Yet while it's distributable, it's also clearly not DFSG free and btw it's also not mentioned in debian/copyright at all. So for sid+jessie I recommend to drop this file. Also not least because "Suggestive pictures used in lect

Processed: libav/tests/lena.pnm: also not mentioned in debian/copyright

Processing control commands: > tags -1 + wheezy-ignore Bug #771126 [src:libav] libav: contains non-DFSG image file tests/lena.pnm Added tag(s) wheezy-ignore. > retitle -1 libav/lena.pnm: non-DFSG free + not mentioned in copyright Bug #771126 [src:libav] libav: contains non-DFSG image file tests/le

Bug#749363: marked as done (FIXME in debian/copyright)

Your message dated Tue, 21 Oct 2014 06:48:46 + with message-id and subject line Bug#749363: fixed in ardour 1:2.8.16+git20131003-4 has caused the Debian Bug report #749363, regarding FIXME in debian/copyright to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt

Bug#749363: FIXME in debian/copyright

Package: ardour Version: 1:2.8.16+git20131003-3 Severity: serious User: alteh...@debian.org Usertags: ftp X-Debbugs-CC: ftpmas...@ftp-master.debian.org thanks Dear Maintainer, your debian/coypright contains lots of "FIXME"-entries. Please take care of them. Thanks! Thorsten ___

Bug#742679: marked as done (missing license in debian/copyright)

Your message dated Sun, 04 May 2014 01:49:14 + with message-id and subject line Bug#742679: fixed in lives 2.2.4~ds0-2 has caused the Debian Bug report #742679, regarding missing license in debian/copyright to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with

Bug#742679: missing license in debian/copyright

Tags: patch attached a patch which reworks the copyright file completely. It should fix all issues. Sebastian diff -urw lives-1.6.2~ds1.old/debian/copyright lives-1.6.2~ds1/debian/copyright --- lives-1.6.2~ds1.old/debian/copyright 2012-06-26 07:20:26.0 + +++ lives-1.6.2~ds1/debian

Bug#743485: marked as done (missing license in debian/copyright)

Your message dated Sun, 06 Apr 2014 15:21:42 + with message-id and subject line Bug#743485: fixed in libva 1.3.0-2 has caused the Debian Bug report #743485, regarding missing license in debian/copyright to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If

Bug#743485: missing license in debian/copyright

Package: libva Version: 1.3.0-1 Severity: serious User: alteh...@debian.org Usertags: ftp X-Debbugs-CC: ftpmas...@ftp-master.debian.org thanks Dear Maintainer, please add the missing licenses of libva-1.3.0\test\decode\* libva-1.3.0\va\wayland\protocol\wayland-drm.xml to debian/copyright

Bug#742679: missing license in debian/copyright

-plugins/farneback_analyser.cpp lives-plugins/plugins/decoders/flv_decoder.h (LGPLv2.1) src/giw/giwvslider.c (LGPLv2.1) (and I am sure there are some more) to debian/copyright Thanks! Thorsten ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg

Bug#739499: marked as done (missing license in debian/copyright)

Your message dated Sun, 23 Mar 2014 15:52:04 + with message-id and subject line Bug#739499: fixed in x264 2:0.142.2389+git956c8d8-2 has caused the Debian Bug report #739499, regarding missing license in debian/copyright to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has

Processed: missing licence for a few files in debian/copyright, problems in stable

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > notfound 740602 1.9.0-beta6.9+dfsg1-2.1 Bug #740602 [doomsday] missing license in debian/copyright Ignoring request to alter found versions of bug #740602 to the same values previously set > found 740602 1.10.4-1 Bug #740602 [doomsday] m

Bug#739499: missing license in debian/copyright

Package: x264 Severity: serious User: alteh...@debian.org Usertags: ftp X-Debbugs-CC: ftpmas...@ftp-master.debian.org thanks Dear Maintainer, please add the missing license of x264-0.142.2389+git956c8d8/extras/cl* to debian/copyright. Thanks! Thorsten

Bug#735555: marked as done (missing license in debian/copyright)

Your message dated Sat, 1 Feb 2014 18:16:57 -0500 with message-id and subject line Re: Bug#73: missing license in debian/copyright has caused the Debian Bug report #73, regarding missing license in debian/copyright to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has

Bug#735555: missing license in debian/copyright

Package: liblivemedia Severity: serious User: alteh...@debian.org Usertags: ftp X-Debbugs-CC: ftpmas...@ftp-master.debian.org thanks Dear Maintainer, please add the missing license of ./liveMedia/rtcp_from_spec.h ./liveMedia/rtcp_from_spec.c to debian/copyright. According to http

Bug#683042: marked as done (debian/copyright: No information of embedded external libraries)

Your message dated Wed, 06 Nov 2013 11:49:02 + with message-id and subject line Bug#683042: fixed in blender 2.69-1 has caused the Debian Bug report #683042, regarding debian/copyright: No information of embedded external libraries to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the

Bug#683042: Blender: debian/copyright: No information of embedded external libraries

Hi again, Ross! On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 12:28:11AM +0200, Ross Gammon wrote: > I have attached a patch with an updated copyright file where I have > included all copyrights/licenses found in the package. I've checked and committed your patch to my local git repository. It will be part of next rev

Bug#683042: Blender: debian/copyright: No information of embedded external libraries

Hi Ross! Il 06/ott/2013 00:33 "Ross Gammon" ha scritto: > Wow - is there a license that isn't used in the Blender package! > > I have attached a patch with an updated copyright file where I have > included all copyrights/licenses found in the package. Thanks a lot for your massive work! ;-) Gon

Bug#683042: Blender: debian/copyright: No information of embedded external libraries

>From 552f66c33698379034b9d31f795da1e9979c3228 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Ross Gammon Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2013 00:11:55 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] Complete update of copyright file to fix #683042 --- debian/copyright | 814 ++- 1 file changed, 811 insertio

Processed: Blender: debian/copyright: No information of embedded external libraries

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > tag 683042 +patch Bug #683042 [blender] debian/copyright: No information of embedded external libraries Added tag(s) patch. > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 683042: http://bugs.debian.org/c

Bug#683042: Blender: debian/copyright: No information of embedded external libraries

Hi, I am looking to join the Multimedia team soon. This bug looked like a nice one to start with for a new chum. Give me a few days, and then hopefully I can attach a patch with a fresh copyright file to the bug for review. Regards, Ross ___ pkg-mult

Bug#683042: debian/copyright: No information of embedded external libraries

Hi! On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 10:53:14PM +0200, Teemu Ikonen wrote: > Oops, I forgot to add the bug address to the mail to control, here's the > explanation again: > > Justification: Policy 2.3, 4.5. > > I think it's time to fix this before the next release. Given that Cycles render engine is und

Bug#683042: debian/copyright: No information of embedded external libraries

Oops, I forgot to add the bug address to the mail to control, here's the explanation again: Justification: Policy 2.3, 4.5. I think it's time to fix this before the next release. Best, Teemu ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-ma

Processed: Re: Bug#683042: debian/copyright: No information of embedded external libraries

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > severity 683042 serious Bug #683042 [blender] debian/copyright: No information of embedded external libraries Severity set to 'serious' from 'normal' > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need as

Bug#719603: marked as done (intel-vaapi-driver: outdated debian/copyright)

Your message dated Sun, 08 Sep 2013 00:18:34 + with message-id and subject line Bug#719603: fixed in intel-vaapi-driver 1.2.0-1 has caused the Debian Bug report #719603, regarding intel-vaapi-driver: outdated debian/copyright to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem

Bug#719602: marked as done (libva: outdated debian/copyright)

Your message dated Thu, 05 Sep 2013 19:18:18 + with message-id and subject line Bug#719602: fixed in libva 1.2.1-1 has caused the Debian Bug report #719602, regarding libva: outdated debian/copyright to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If

Re: [SCM] libass/master: Update debian/copyright.

Quoting ales...@users.alioth.debian.org (2013-09-04 11:04:07) > Update debian/copyright. Please be more verbose on *what* is changed in this important file. > Files: ltmain.sh > Copyright: > - 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, > - 2005, 2006, 2007 200

Bug#719603: intel-vaapi-driver: outdated debian/copyright

Source: intel-vaapi-driver Version: 1.0.20-2 Severity: important As requested by mfv: 18:18 < Sebastinas> mfv: If I remember correctly, you've been looking for a sponsor for intel-vaapi-driver, right? 18:20 < Sebastinas> d/copyright needs an update. 18:21 < Sebastinas> There are files with Copyr

Bug#719602: libva: outdated debian/copyright

Source: libva Version: 1.1.1-3 Severity: important As requested by mfv: 18:18 < Sebastinas> mfv: If I remember correctly, you've been looking for a sponsor for intel-vaapi-driver, right? 18:20 < Sebastinas> d/copyright needs an update. 18:21 < Sebastinas> There are files with Copyright 2010, 201

Bug#694657: marked as done (libav-source: debian/copyright file no longer seems to be accurate)

Your message dated Wed, 09 Jan 2013 06:48:03 + with message-id and subject line Bug#694657: fixed in libav 6:9.1-1 has caused the Debian Bug report #694657, regarding libav-source: debian/copyright file no longer seems to be accurate to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the

Bug#694657: libav-source: debian/copyright file no longer seems to be accurate

Am 30.11.2012 19:39, schrieb Francesco Poli: By the way, I would like to inform Fabian about the existence of bug #472199: the plan is to integrate licensecheck2dep5 into licensecheck itself... Jonas, I really hope there's some progress on that front! ;-) Yes, this would be a vast improvement

Bug#694657: libav-source: debian/copyright file no longer seems to be accurate

On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 14:21:27 +0100 Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > Quoting Fabian Greffrath (2012-11-30 08:57:22) [...] > > Jonas, could you please help me and reveal how I have to modify the > > licensecheck2dep5 script to combine all Files and Copyright holders > > for which the same License applies

Bug#694657: libav-source: debian/copyright file no longer seems to be accurate

Am 30.11.2012 14:21, schrieb Jonas Smedegaard: I have wanted to make that very improvement for some time - thanks for pushing me: CDBS 0.4.119 now released to support this. :-) That helped a lot, thank you very much! - Fabian ___ pkg-multimedia-mai

Bug#694657: libav-source: debian/copyright file no longer seems to be accurate

Quoting Fabian Greffrath (2012-11-30 08:57:22) > Am 28.11.2012 19:44, schrieb Francesco Poli (wintermute): > > Please perform a new licensing audit and update the debian/copyright > > file. Maybe this could be the opportunity to switch to the new > > machine-readable debian/

Bug#694657: libav-source: debian/copyright file no longer seems to be accurate

Am 28.11.2012 19:44, schrieb Francesco Poli (wintermute): Please perform a new licensing audit and update the debian/copyright file. Maybe this could be the opportunity to switch to the new machine-readable debian/copyright file format [2]... I tried to tackle this issue down yesterday by

Bug#694657: libav-source: debian/copyright file no longer seems to be accurate

Source: libav Version: 6:0.8.4-1 Severity: important Hello, it seems to me that the debian/copyright file [1] is no longer consistent with the actual content of the upstream source archive (libav_0.8.4.orig.tar.gz). For instance, file libavcodec/dtsdec.c no longer exists (there is a libavformat

Bug#683042: debian/copyright: No information of embedded external libraries

Hi again! On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 10:27:04AM +0900, IRIE Shinsuke wrote: > debian/copyright doesn't include the copyright information of the > external libraries such as libmv, Eigen3, and Bullet Physics which > are included in orig.tar.bz2 file and will be statically linked. I nev

Bug#683042: debian/copyright: No information of embedded external libraries

On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 3:27 AM, IRIE Shinsuke wrote: > debian/copyright doesn't include the copyright information of the > external libraries such as libmv, Eigen3, and Bullet Physics which > are included in orig.tar.bz2 file and will be statically linked. > > Also,

Bug#683042: debian/copyright: No information of embedded external libraries

Package: blender Version: 2.63a-1 debian/copyright doesn't include the copyright information of the external libraries such as libmv, Eigen3, and Bullet Physics which are included in orig.tar.bz2 file and will be statically linked. Also, there are some codes partially imported from ext

Re: ignoring autotool in debian/copyright?

icensing for the work. > > I don't think the puspose of debian/copyright is to show appreciation > to upstream for wisely chosing this or that license. Neither do I. I feel you are distorting what I write. > As Felipe already pointed out, it is a legal technical document. Ye

Re: ignoring autotool in debian/copyright?

Am 01.12.2011 20:54, schrieb Jonas Smedegaard: kudos and good relations are ways to pay respect too. But none of those pay respect specifically to the work upstream have put into carefully deciding on a specific licensing for the work. I don't think the puspose of debian/copyright is to

Re: ignoring autotool in debian/copyright?

On 11-12-01 at 04:25pm, Felipe Sateler wrote: > On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 16:12, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > On 11-12-01 at 03:56pm, Felipe Sateler wrote: > >> On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 15:25, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > >> >> > I sure prefer if you are not lazy but instead respectful to those > >> >> >

Re: ignoring autotool in debian/copyright?

On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 16:12, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > On 11-12-01 at 03:56pm, Felipe Sateler wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 15:25, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: >> >> > I sure prefer if you are not lazy but instead respectful to those >> >> > developers that put effort into inventing and maintainin

Re: ignoring autotool in debian/copyright?

On 11-12-01 at 03:56pm, Felipe Sateler wrote: > On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 15:25, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > >> > I sure prefer if you are not lazy but instead respectful to those > >> > developers that put effort into inventing and maintaining a tool > >> > that is clearly good enough that you use i

Re: ignoring autotool in debian/copyright?

On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 15:25, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: >> > I sure prefer if you are not lazy but instead respectful to those >> > developers that put effort into inventing and maintaining a tool >> > that is clearly good enough that you use it. >> >> hmm, i don't think this is about not respecting

Re: ignoring autotool in debian/copyright?

On 11-12-01 at 12:13am, Felipe Sateler wrote: > On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 00:16, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > On 11-11-21 at 11:25am, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote: > >> On 2011-11-21 03:26, Felipe Sateler wrote: > >> > Looks like there is a strange thing with the instal

Re: ignoring autotool in debian/copyright?

On 11-12-01 at 11:26am, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote: > the reason why i started this discussion is not because i don't care > about licensing of those files; but that i think - as felipe has > already pointed out - that "properly" documenting those files as is > currently suggested only creates no

Re: ignoring autotool in debian/copyright?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 2011-11-30 04:16, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > You can (with your Debian hat on, I am not talking about upstream here) > repackage the source to *not* include the autogenerated files as part of > Debian distributed sources. IF the files truly are on

Re: ignoring autotool in debian/copyright?

information in a single file "debian/copyright". Doing so may be a great service for people that work on the source packages, right, but I really don't think this is currently a requirement, nor should maintainers be forced to do so. Hm, valid point. I don't believed this has not

Re: ignoring autotool in debian/copyright?

rd to documenting the > licensing of auto-generated files (and most parts of the GNU auto* build > system, FWIW) I have to disagree with your statement that code which > does not end up in binaries does not have to get documented in > debian/copyright. > > In my understanding, said file i

Re: ignoring autotool in debian/copyright?

system, FWIW) I have to disagree with your statement that code which does not end up in binaries does not have to get documented in debian/copyright. In my understanding, said file is to document the license and copyright situation of the packages that Debian offers - but Debian does also offer the

Re: ignoring autotool in debian/copyright?

with the install-sh section in >>> > debian/copyright. The license name contains spaces, and doesn't >>> > match any License: paragraph. >> >> I guess what you find strange is license names of this form: >> >> License: GPL-2+ with Libtool exception &

Re: ignoring autotool in debian/copyright?

On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 00:16, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > On 11-11-21 at 11:25am, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote: >> On 2011-11-21 03:26, Felipe Sateler wrote: >> > Looks like there is a strange thing with the install-sh section in >> > debian/copyright. The license name c

Re: ignoring autotool in debian/copyright?

On 11-11-21 at 11:25am, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote: > On 2011-11-21 03:26, Felipe Sateler wrote: > > Looks like there is a strange thing with the install-sh section in > > debian/copyright. The license name contains spaces, and doesn't > > match any License: paragra

Re: ignoring autotool in debian/copyright?

On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 21:50, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > On 11-11-29 at 08:00pm, Felipe Sateler wrote: >> As discussed in another thread, the autotools stuff need not be >> documented in the copyright file, and is just unnecessary noise. > > Sorry for not paying attention to that.  Could you pleas

ignoring autotool in debian/copyright?

On 11-11-29 at 08:00pm, Felipe Sateler wrote: > As discussed in another thread, the autotools stuff need not be > documented in the copyright file, and is just unnecessary noise. Sorry for not paying attention to that. Could you please point me to that discussion, as I am a proponent for tracki

Re: debian/copyright

t;Files: * >>> > >Copyright: 1997-2010 Kai Vehmanen >>> > >License: GPL-2+ >>> > >>> > Was there an implicit question somewhere in the above? >>> >>> Not from me. Alessandro, was there something you >>> wanted to ask about? &

Re: debian/copyright

files. > > > >Files: * > >Copyright: 1997-2010 Kai Vehmanen > >License: GPL-2+ > > Was there an implicit question somewhere in the above? Not from me. Alessandro, was there something you wanted to ask about? Yes. Currently the debian/copyright for ecasound lists all

Re: debian/copyright

> >Files: * > > >Copyright: 1997-2010 Kai Vehmanen > > >License: GPL-2+ > > > > Was there an implicit question somewhere in the above? > > Not from me. Alessandro, was there something you > wanted to ask about? Yes. Currently the debian/copyright for e

Re: debian/copyright

On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 08:19:55PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 08:29:04AM -1000, Joel Roth wrote: > >I'm working on Ecasound's copyright file. Would like to ask for a > >review. > > > >This project has lots of contributors with different dates in > >different files. > >

Re: debian/copyright

On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 08:29:04AM -1000, Joel Roth wrote: I'm working on Ecasound's copyright file. Would like to ask for a review. This project has lots of contributors with different dates in different files. The catchall entry points to the original developer covering all years listed i

debian/copyright

Hi all, I'm working on Ecasound's copyright file. Would like to ask for a review. This project has lots of contributors with different dates in different files. The catchall entry points to the original developer covering all years listed in the project files. Files: * Copyright: 1997-2010 Kai

Re: gwc in debian (copyright issue)

2011/3/7 Jonas Smedegaard : > On Sun, Mar 06, 2011 at 10:09:49PM +0100, Jaromír Mikeš wrote: From: Jaromír Mikeš >> Hi Jeffrey, I am taking over gwc package in debian and having some license concerns: 1) chbevl.c file has this statement Cephes Math

Re: gwc in debian (copyright issue)

On Sun, Mar 06, 2011 at 10:09:49PM +0100, Jaromír Mikeš wrote: From: Jaromír Mikeš Hi Jeffrey, I am taking over gwc package in debian and having some license concerns: 1) chbevl.c file has this statement Cephes Math Library Release 2.0: April, 1987 Copyright 1985, 1987 by Stephen L. Moshi

Re: gwc in debian (copyright issue)

>> From: Jaromír Mikeš >> Hi Jeffrey, >> >> I am taking over gwc package in debian and having some >> license concerns: >> >> 1) chbevl.c file has this statement >> >> Cephes Math Library Release 2.0: April, 1987 >> Copyright 1985, 1987 by Stephen L. Moshier >> Direct inquiries to 30 Frost Stree

Re: [SCM] milkytracker/master: Update debian/copyright and remove FIXMEs

ed in > the embedded licensing statements themselves. > > We need to be explicit in debian/copyright. I see. > >>>>Do anyone here know for sure if LGPL-2+ is compatible with GPL-3? > >>> > >>>I think it is [2]. > >> > >>No - that onl

Re: [SCM] milkytracker/master: Update debian/copyright and remove FIXMEs

, 2011 at 09:39:46PM +, >>ghedo-gu...@users.alioth.debian.org wrote: >>> Update debian/copyright and remove FIXMEs >> >>>Files: src/compression/zziplib/* >>>Copyright: 1999-2004, Guido Draheim >>>-License: LGPL or MPL-1.1 >>>+

Re: [SCM] milkytracker/master: Update debian/copyright and remove FIXMEs

ers.alioth.debian.org wrote: > >>> Update debian/copyright and remove FIXMEs > >> > >>>Files: src/compression/zziplib/* > >>>Copyright: 1999-2004, Guido Draheim > >>>-License: LGPL or MPL-1.1 > >>>+License: LGPL-2+ or MPL-1.1 >

Re: [SCM] milkytracker/master: Update debian/copyright and remove FIXMEs

On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 11:36:40PM +0100, Alessandro Ghedini wrote: On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 10:58:47PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 09:39:46PM +, ghedo-gu...@users.alioth.debian.org wrote: > Update debian/copyright and remove FIXMEs >Files: src/compr

Re: [SCM] milkytracker/master: Update debian/copyright and remove FIXMEs

On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 10:58:47PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 09:39:46PM +, > ghedo-gu...@users.alioth.debian.org wrote: > > Update debian/copyright and remove FIXMEs > > >Files: src/compression/zziplib/* > >Copyright: 1999-2004, Guid

Re: [SCM] milkytracker/master: Update debian/copyright and remove FIXMEs

On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 09:39:46PM +, ghedo-gu...@users.alioth.debian.org wrote: Update debian/copyright and remove FIXMEs Files: src/compression/zziplib/* Copyright: 1999-2004, Guido Draheim -License: LGPL or MPL-1.1 +License: LGPL-2+ or MPL-1.1 All rights reserved, use under the

Re: [SCM] dmedia/master: Move the comment on the repack to debian/copyright.

On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 9:49 AM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > Newer revisions define "Comment" for this, so I suggest using that - even > with older revisions of the spec. Right, changing it right now. -- Alessio Treglia          | www.alessiotreglia.com Debian Developer         | ales...@debian.o

Re: [SCM] dmedia/master: Move the comment on the repack to debian/copyright.

On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 12:10:47AM +, ales...@users.alioth.debian.org wrote: --- a/debian/copyright +++ b/debian/copyright @@ -2,6 +2,8 @@ Format: http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/dep/web/deps/dep5.mdwn?op=file&rev=135 Name: dmedia Maintainer: Jason Gerard DeRose Source: https://launchpad

  1   2   >