Santiago Vila writes:
> Noted, thanks.
> I assume we will have to wait some time before we can remove the license
> itself from base-files (i.e. until all packages stop referencing the
> file).
Yeah, the next release of Lintian will have a tag for it, so we'll be able
to start tracking the prog
On 14/06/10 12:55, Santiago Vila wrote:
> I assume we will have to wait some time before we can remove the
> license itself from base-files (i.e. until all packages stop
> referencing the file).
Yes, that would be step 3 in Russ' plan.
Cheers,
Emilio
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-di
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Russ Allbery writes:
>
> > 2. Apply the patch to Policy included below, which removes this license
> >from the list of licenses we tell people to reference from
> >/usr/share/common-licenses and explains why.
>
> This patch has now been merged
Russ Allbery writes:
> 2. Apply the patch to Policy included below, which removes this license
>from the list of licenses we tell people to reference from
>/usr/share/common-licenses and explains why.
This patch has now been merged for the next release.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org
* Russ Allbery , 2010-06-10, 13:13:
diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
index 87b9795..02d6f8d 100644
--- a/policy.sgml
+++ b/policy.sgml
@@ -9227,14 +9227,13 @@ END-INFO-DIR-ENTRY
- Packages distributed under the UCB BSD license, the Apache
- license (versio
Russ Allbery writes:
> However, the first change in this bug is still relevant, and there
> doesn't appear to be another open bug on this issue. The current BSD
> license in common-licenses is not particularly useful since it
> specifically lists the University of California as the copyright hol
On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 13:13:23 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Any further discussion?
Sounds logcial to me.
> I'm also looking for seconds for the Policy patch
> below:
>
> diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
> index 87b9795..02d6f8d 100644
> --- a/policy.sgml
> +++ b/policy.sgml
> @@ -9227,14
On 10/06/10 22:13, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I therefore propose proceeding as follows:
>
> 1. Add a new Lintian warning asking people to stop using the
>common-licenses link for the BSD license and instead include the
>license directly in debian/copyright. As we've discussed in the past,
>
package debian-policy
user [EMAIL PROTECTED]
retitle 284340 Remove reference to UC in BSD license or remove license
usertag 284340 = normative discussion
tags 284340 -wontfix
thanks
This bug proposed two changes: first, remove the specific reference to the
University of California from the BSD lic
9 matches
Mail list logo
