I've now posted the REUSE RFC and slightly updated the proposed amendment to
RFC40.
RFC: https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/rfcs/-/merge_requests/52
Proposed amendment of RFC40:
https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/rfcs/-/merge_requests/49
It would be nice to clarify the situation as we a
On Tue, Jan 07, 2025 at 01:37:04PM +0100, Rafael Epplée wrote:
>
> [...snipping thread...]
>
> Okay, I think we agree on all important points here, and I think we have a
> solid plan for fixing the issues you brought up as well as a good long-term
> vision.
>
> The one thing I'd like to discuss f
On Mon, Jan 06, 2025 at 04:42:08PM +0100, kpcyrd wrote:
> On 1/6/25 3:49 PM, Rafael Epplée wrote:
> > Let's consider going with a less explicit way to specify licensing info,
> > and drastically reduce the work involved:
> >
> > - Add a LICENSES folder with the original 0BSD text inside
> > - Inst
On 06.01.25 16:10, Morten Linderud wrote:
On Mon, Jan 06, 2025 at 03:49:09PM +0100, Rafael Epplée wrote:
Thanks for taking the initiative on this!
No worries!
Adding REUSE.toml files to all package sources will be tricky to automate.
With REUSE, we'll have to explicitly specify license and
On 1/6/25 3:49 PM, Rafael Epplée wrote:
Let's consider going with a less explicit way to specify licensing info,
and drastically reduce the work involved:
- Add a LICENSES folder with the original 0BSD text inside
- Instead of REUSE.toml, use the same piece of prose in every repo to
specify wh
On Mon, Jan 06, 2025 at 03:49:09PM +0100, Rafael Epplée wrote:
>
> Thanks for taking the initiative on this!
No worries!
> Adding REUSE.toml files to all package sources will be tricky to automate.
> With REUSE, we'll have to explicitly specify license and copyright for *all
> files* in the sourc
On 03.01.25 21:07, Morten Linderud wrote:
Yo,
Today I noticed that the "License package sources" RFC contained an amended 0BSD
license that added a two paragraph exception for patch files and other auxiliary
files. The purpose of this change is to ensure the license is not covering other
files i
On 03.01.25 at 21:07 (UTC+0100), Morten Linderud wrote:
> Yo,
>
> Today I noticed that the "License package sources" RFC contained an amended
> 0BSD
> license that added a two paragraph exception for patch files and other
> auxiliary
> files. The purpose of this change is to ensure the license i
On January 3, 2025 3:00:06 PM CST, Sven-Hendrik Haase
wrote:
>On 03.01.25 21:07, Morten Linderud wrote:
>> Yo,
>>
>> Today I noticed that the "License package sources" RFC contained an amended
>> 0BSD
>> license that added a two paragraph exception for patch files and other
>> auxiliary
>>
On 03.01.25 21:07, Morten Linderud wrote:
Yo,
Today I noticed that the "License package sources" RFC contained an amended 0BSD
license that added a two paragraph exception for patch files and other auxiliary
files. The purpose of this change is to ensure the license is not covering other
files i
Yo,
Today I noticed that the "License package sources" RFC contained an amended 0BSD
license that added a two paragraph exception for patch files and other auxiliary
files. The purpose of this change is to ensure the license is not covering other
files in the repository that the author can't licen
11 matches
Mail list logo
