On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 10:55:45AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Given that identifiers like ‘Other1’, ’Other2’… are ugly or even confusing,
> and
> that the machine-readable format has the goal to be very human-readable as
> well, I propose to remove the default to ’other’ from the DEP and leave
Le Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 12:48:04PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit :
>
> Question on this (because the current draft does not look particularly
> clear on that topic, at least to my own reading): is it true that
> arbitrary keywords can be used in License fields to reference license
> blocks exp
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 10:55:01AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Yes, it's intended that a License: field with an arbitrary keyword can
> be used to refer to a later License block.
Thanks.
> If this isn't clear, can you suggest improvements to the text?
You can find attached an attempt of that,
Hi Stefano,
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 12:48:04PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> Bonus note on the current DEP-5 draft, quoting from it:
> * License
> # First line: licence name(s) in abbreviated format (see Short
> names section). If empty, it is given the default value ‘other’
>
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 07:08:18PM +0100, Jon Dowland wrote:
> The intention here is to indicate that the Copyright
> differs for wibble.c, but the License from the earlier
> wildcard still applies. Is this acceptable, or need I
> replicate License: in the second stanza?
Bonus note on the current
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 11:15:57PM +0100, Jon Dowland wrote:
> A closer reading of the DEP-5 wording clears this up for me:
> However it makes for easier reading if the copyright
> file lists the “main” license first: the one matching
> the “top level” of the work, with others li
Le Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 11:15:57PM +0100, Jon Dowland a écrit :
>
> So as it stands, no inheritance is possible, and every Files: line must be
> accompanied by a Copyright: and a License: line.
Hi again,
to my knowledge, nobody proposed inheritance before you, probably because most
people see th
On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 09:08:19PM +0900, Charles Plessy
wrote:
> In this simple example there is no ambiguity, but only
> because it is assumed that the package is licensed
> entirely under one license.
That wasn't the assumption I was making...
> The easiest alternative source is the the stanza
Le Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 07:08:18PM +0100, Jon Dowland a écrit :
>
> Consider the situation where you have a package licensed entirely under one
> license and predominantly authored by one or more persons, with the odd file
> here and there authored by a different conjunction of people. In this cas
Sorry to raise the spectre of DEP5 after so many months.
And apologies if this has already been raised elsewhere;
I haven't found it in a skim of the list archives and the
wiki page.
Consider the situation where you have a package licensed
entirely under one license and predominantly authored by
o
10 matches
Mail list logo
