Felipe Sateler writes:
> I suspect you are setting an impossibly high bar for determining the
> license of a work. We can (and do) rely on upstream telling us the truth
> when they say the work is of a certain license, and that contributions
> from third parties have been accepted under that lice
On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 15:41:00 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Quoting Felipe Sateler (2017-12-19 14:20:42)
>> Sometimes the license requires listing the copyright holders. In those
>> cases, the list of holders must be present in the copyright file. In
>> the rest, there is no need to list them. O
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 06:44:54PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > What if the author is anonymous then?
> Then who granted the license?
the anonymous author.
this of course can lead to certain problems, _maybe_.
> If you buy the Eiffel tower from someone anonymously, then you are in
> troub
Quoting Thomas Goirand (2017-12-19 17:23:08)
> On 12/19/2017 03:41 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>> Quoting Felipe Sateler (2017-12-19 14:20:42)
>>> Sometimes the license requires listing the copyright holders. In
>>> those cases, the list of holders must be present in the copyright
>>> file. In th
On 2017-12-12 4:00 AM, Michael Meskes wrote:
Actually the problem is I run very low on time right now. Let me make
two things clear, I really like citadel despite not using it and
upstream (all of them, not just Art) is very nice to work with and more
than willing to help.
My problem is a very
On 2017-12-19 15:17:56 +0100 (+0100), Thomas Goirand wrote:
[...]
> I wish you good luck with that. I attempted *twice* to have the
> copyright holder information attached to each upstream project on
> upstream OpenStack, and twice this was a failure. Maybe I'm not good
> with communication, but I
On 12/19/2017 03:41 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Quoting Felipe Sateler (2017-12-19 14:20:42)
>> Sometimes the license requires listing the copyright holders. In those
>> cases, the list of holders must be present in the copyright file. In
>> the rest, there is no need to list them. Only the lic
Quoting Felipe Sateler (2017-12-19 14:20:42)
> Sometimes the license requires listing the copyright holders. In those
> cases, the list of holders must be present in the copyright file. In
> the rest, there is no need to list them. Only the license matters.
>
> .oO( should the copyright file be r
On 12/19/2017 02:20 PM, Felipe Sateler wrote:
> Sometimes the license requires listing the copyright holders. In those
> cases, the list of holders must be present in the copyright file. In the
> rest, there is no need to list them. Only the license matters.
>
> .oO( should the copyright file be
On 12/19/2017 10:47 AM, Ben Finney wrote:
> We (the Debian Project) don't have to accept being the *only* ones
> shouldering this burden. Large upstream organisations have large
> shoulders.
>
> Surely a team responsible for a large code base also must – to avoid
> self-delusion – confront the nee
Quoting Ian Jackson (2017-12-19 14:06:14)
> Ben Finney writes ("Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?"):
> > Surely a team responsible for a large code base also must – to avoid
> > self-delusion – confront the need to know, with confidence that comes
> > >from standard, verifiable docum
On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 20:47:01 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> Marc Haber writes:
>
>> On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 20:01:12 -0500, Jeremy Bicha
>> wrote:
>> >I was forced to spend a few hours doing a thorough copyright file
>> >earlier this year for mozjs52 which is simply the JavaScript engine
>> >from Firef
Ben Finney writes ("Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?"):
> Surely a team responsible for a large code base also must – to avoid
> self-delusion – confront the need to know, with confidence that comes
> >from standard, verifiable documentation, the provenance of works from
> which the
Marc Haber, on mar. 19 déc. 2017 10:37:15 +0100, wrote:
> The description should mention which version of IP is supported. While
> IPv6 support has been mandatory for a decade, IPv6 not being mentioned
> suggests (at least to me) that only the legacy IPv4 protocol is
> supported.
As you say, IPv6
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Antonio Ospite
* Package name: drupal-init-tools
Version : 0.1.1
Upstream Author : Antonio Ospite
* URL : https://git.ao2.it/drupal-init-tools.git/
* License : GPL-2+
Programming Lang: Bash
Description : helper c
Marc Haber writes:
> On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 20:01:12 -0500, Jeremy Bicha
> wrote:
> >I was forced to spend a few hours doing a thorough copyright file
> >earlier this year for mozjs52 which is simply the JavaScript engine
> >from Firefox 52 ESR. I first tried copying the Firefox 52 ESR's
> >copyrig
On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 20:01:12 -0500, Jeremy Bicha
wrote:
>On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> On 12/07/2017 05:57 AM, Steve Robbins wrote:
>>> So: if I changed the boost copyright file to say "Copyright: $Dates Boost
>>> authors", would it pass ftp-master scrutiny?
>>
>> No,
On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 00:12:36 +0100, Samuel Thibault
wrote:
>Package: wnpp
>Severity: wishlist
>Owner: Samuel Thibault
>
>* Package name: lwip
> Version : 2.0.3
> Upstream Author : Adam Dunkels
>Leon Woestenberg
>* URL : http://savannah.nongnu.org/pr
On 12/19/2017 02:01 AM, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> On 12/07/2017 05:57 AM, Steve Robbins wrote:
>>> So: if I changed the boost copyright file to say "Copyright: $Dates Boost
>>> authors", would it pass ftp-master scrutiny?
>>
>> No, I don't thin
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Andreas Tille
* Package name: r-cran-isoweek
Version : 0.6-2
Upstream Author : Uwe Block
* URL : https://cran.r-project.org/package=ISOweek
* License : GPL
Programming Lang: GNU R
Description : GNU R week of the
20 matches
Mail list logo
