On Sat, 2025-03-08 at 20:24 -0700, Soren Stoutner wrote:
[...]
>
> I agree with your analysis, the Project Gutenberg license is not DFSG-
> free, most particularly because of the restrictions on commercial use.
It appears this has been discussed before:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-l
it says "Public domain in the
> USA", but the header in the file indicated that it was licensed "under
> the terms of the Project Gutenberg License".
>
> This package has been accepted into Debian through NEW in the past with
> the d/copyright in this state, indicating
stem describing license exceptions, so that we do not
need to quote near-identical versions of the GPL two or three times in
the same copyright files. Fortunately, SPDX has adopted such a system
in the meantime.
With the current version of the machine-readable debian/copyright file,
we can already use S
Quoting Fabio Fantoni (2024-09-08 19:29:18)
> licensecheck even if with "--shortname-scheme spdx,debian" seems show
> some debian name where can show spdx instead, with only spdx is probably
> good but i haven't tested it enough
Interesting. Please file bugreports, one issue in detail in each
b
r, is it possible to put in d/copyright DEP5 the short license
names using the spdx ones?
we’ve been doing that for KDE packages since upstream started tagging all
source files with SPDX-License / SPDX-Copyright headers and so using SPDX
license identifiers some years ago. See [1] for example.
Il 08/09/2024 12:25, Aurélien COUDERC ha scritto:
Le 8 septembre 2024 09:38:00 GMT+02:00, Andrea Pappacoda
a écrit :
Hi Aurélien,
On Sat Sep 7, 2024 at 10:56 PM CEST, Aurélien COUDERC wrote:
Our spec [2] already defines an equivalence rule between License-X and
License-X.0 declarations
On Sun, 08 Sep 2024 at 09:49:39 +0200, Niels Thykier wrote:
> Is it really that valuable for us to have a delta here compared to what
> upstream projects would use?
IMO: no. If (some) upstream projects are now taking copyright/license
tracking in general (and machine-readable copyright/l
Le 8 septembre 2024 09:38:00 GMT+02:00, Andrea Pappacoda
a écrit :
>Hi Aurélien,
>
>On Sat Sep 7, 2024 at 10:56 PM CEST, Aurélien COUDERC wrote:
>> Our spec [2] already defines an equivalence rule between License-X and
>> License-X.0 declarations for SPDX compatibility.
Jonas Smedegaard:
[...]
DEP5 already encourages (but does not require) use of SPDX shortnames,
except where Debian and SPDX disagree on sensible naming.
See https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/#spdx
and the historical notes at
https://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/Copy
Hi Aurélien,
On Sat Sep 7, 2024 at 10:56 PM CEST, Aurélien COUDERC wrote:
Our spec [2] already defines an equivalence rule between License-X and
License-X.0 declarations for SPDX compatibility.
For what I’ve seen on the quite vast and diverse KDE source corpus
we’d only need 2 additional
in d/copyright DEP5 the short license
> >> names using the spdx ones?
> > we’ve been doing that for KDE packages since upstream started tagging all
> > source files with SPDX-License / SPDX-Copyright headers and so using SPDX
> > license identifiers some years ago. See [1
Il 07/09/2024 22:56, Aurélien COUDERC ha scritto:
Hi Fabio,
Le samedi 7 septembre 2024, 21:43:35 CEST Fabio Fantoni a écrit :
So I wonder, is it possible to put in d/copyright DEP5 the short license
names using the spdx ones?
we’ve been doing that for KDE packages since upstream started
Hi Fabio,
Le samedi 7 septembre 2024, 21:43:35 CEST Fabio Fantoni a écrit :
> So I wonder, is it possible to put in d/copyright DEP5 the short license
> names using the spdx ones?
we’ve been doing that for KDE packages since upstream started tagging all
source files with SPDX-License
Quoting Fabio Fantoni (2024-09-07 21:43:35)
> Hi, spdx has an ever-increasing usage. Today trying reuse tool I tried
> to convert DEP5 d/copyright to REUSE.toml thinking a possible help to
> some project upstream, when license and copyright "management" is not
> g
Hi, spdx has an ever-increasing usage. Today trying reuse tool I tried
to convert DEP5 d/copyright to REUSE.toml thinking a possible help to
some project upstream, when license and copyright "management" is not
good, converting from d/copyright (DEP5) which is better, for exa
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Edward Betts
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, debian-pyt...@lists.debian.org
* Package name: freenub
Version : 0.1.0
Upstream Author : J. Nick Koston
* URL : https://github.com/bdraco/freenub
* License : MIT
* License : MIT
Programming Lang: OCaml
Description : library providing a strict SPDX License Expression parser
An OCaml library aiming to provide an up-to-date and strict SPDX
License Expression parser. It implements the format described in:
https://spdx.github.io/spdx-spec
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Peter
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, pe...@pblackman.plus.com
* Package name : licenserecon
Version : 1.0
Upstream Contact: Peter Blackman
* URL : https://salsa.debian.org/PeterB/licenserecon
* License
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Yadd
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
* Package name: node-license-webpack-plugin
Version : 4.0.2
Upstream Contact: https://github.com/xz64/license-webpack-plugin/issues
* URL : https://github.com/xz64/license-webpack
On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 09:09:22PM +0800, 刘涛 wrote:
> Hello, I have the following questions to consult and look forward to your
> authoritative answers.
>
> 1. Must various software packages in the Debian community contain a
> license file "license.txt"? Without this
Hello, I have the following questions to consult and look forward to your
authoritative answers.
1. Must various software packages in the Debian community contain a license
file "license.txt"? Without this file, how does the users know about the
license usage of the package?
2. I
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Jonas Smedegaard
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, Debian Perl Group
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
* Package name: libstring-license-perl
Version : 0.0.1
Upstream Contact: Jonas Smedegaard
* URL
Quoting Sam Hartman (2022-01-17 03:48:40)
> >>>>> "Jonas" == Jonas Smedegaard writes:
>
> Jonas> Please note, however, that license _grants_ (i.e. the various
> Jonas> ways a copyright holder can state that they grant some
> Jonas> _
>>>>> "Jonas" == Jonas Smedegaard writes:
Jonas> Please note, however, that license _grants_ (i.e. the various
Jonas> ways a copyright holder can state that they grant some
Jonas> _referenced-by-them_ license) need not be included verbatim.
I su
ting style to use the shorter field
> > "Reference" and also use it to reference sources of copyright
> > holders and license grants when not contained in licensed file
> > itself (with a little special twist of self-referencing canonical
> > statements in debian/c
Hi Jonas!
On 1/16/22 20:06, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Quoting Jonas Smedegaard (2022-01-16 19:53:48)
>> Quoting John Paul Adrian Glaubitz (2022-01-16 19:38:25)
>>> I have updated debian/copyright of both fs-uae-* packages to use the
>>> "License-Reference" k
Quoting Jonas Smedegaard (2022-01-16 19:53:48)
> Quoting John Paul Adrian Glaubitz (2022-01-16 19:38:25)
> > I have updated debian/copyright of both fs-uae-* packages to use the
> > "License-Reference" keyword, however lintian now complains about the
> > missing
ected by the FTP team due to an incomplete debian/copyright.
>
> Since the packages contain a lot of different licenses, the
> debian/copyright would be very long when copying the different license
> texts verbatim.
>
> However, I stumbled over the fonts-roboto package which resolves t
different licenses, the debian/copyright
would be
very long when copying the different license texts verbatim.
However, I stumbled over the fonts-roboto package which resolves this issue by
using just
references to the full license texts which are present on any Debian system
anyway [3].
I ha
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Jelmer Vernooij
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
* Package name: license-expression
Version : 1.2
Upstream Author :
* URL : https://github.com/nexb/license-expression
* License : Apache-2.0
Programming Lang
Package: wnpp
Owner: Axel Beckert
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: libsoftware-license-orlaterpack-perl
Version : 0.10.2
Upstream Author : Van de Bugger
* URL : https://metacpan.org/release/Software-License-OrLaterPack
* License : GPL-3+
Programming Lang
Hi,
> However while the license template lists
... does not really matter what they list, just create a repository
without choosing a license and commit your own LICENSE file.
Bernd
--
Bernd ZeimetzDebian GNU/Linux Developer
http://bzed
Hello Paul,
Am 08.12.20 um 14:51 schrieb Paul Sutton:
> Hi
>
> I am working on some presentations for free software, and putting these
> on https://salsa.debian.org/
>
> Some of the presentations are also for the Academy team.
>
> However while the license template l
Hi
I am working on some presentations for free software, and putting these
on https://salsa.debian.org/
Some of the presentations are also for the Academy team.
However while the license template lists
GPL 3
Lesser GPL
The GNU Affero General Public License
The
The GNU Free Documentation
Quoting Osamu Aoki (2020-03-12 14:52:24)
> On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 04:54:32PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > Long description of debmake claims it "does more than what
> > licensecheck(1) offers" but I am puzzled what that sentence means -
> > more polished experience (even if less accurate),
Hi,
On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 04:54:32PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Quoting Mo Zhou (2019-12-27 02:56:07)
> > I created an amount of NEW packages as a DD, and reviewed an amount of
> > NEW packages in the NEW queue as FTP trainee.
>
> Great. Also because your experience as FTP trainee sheds
Package: dh-make-golang
Version: 0.3.1-1
Severity: normal
Hello there!
I have used your tool to package some libraries, and I have noticed that the
MIT license was not recognized.
As you can view on the MIT wikipedia page that "MIT License" may refer to the
Expat License (used f
from current debian/copyright with the information provided by the
new release.
> * licensecheck dumps garbage when it encounters a binary file, e.g. PNG
> image. This is not a BUG, as ftp-masters indeed checks the possible
> metadata in a binary file to make sure whether there is extra
Quoting Michael Lustfield (2020-01-04 08:01:31)
> On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 13:49:18 +
> Mo Zhou wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 04:00:33PM -0600, Michael Lustfield wrote:
> > > I started a similar effort when I first became a trainee.
> > > Unfortunately, a lot of our non-trainees seem to be bu
On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 13:49:18 +
Mo Zhou wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 04:00:33PM -0600, Michael Lustfield wrote:
> > I started a similar effort when I first became a trainee. Unfortunately, a
> > lot
> > of our non-trainees seem to be burned out, which means no reviews, and no
> > reviews m
I've reviewed your proposal.
It seems sane, but is not something I'd contribute to this year.
I would potentially use a really good version of this as an uploader.
I'd ask you to consider how to minimize the debian/copyright.
Since you don't want to have wildcards for files in
debian/copyright.j
On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 04:00:33PM -0600, Michael Lustfield wrote:
> > ## Motivations
>
> I've had similar motivations. Since becoming a Trainee, I've found the review
> process to be rather painful. I think the slow and klunky tools we use are a
> big problem and likely contribute significantly t
On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 04:54:32PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Long description of debmake claims it "does more than what
> licensecheck(1) offers" but I am puzzled what that sentence means - more
> polished experience (even if less accurate), perhaps?
IIRC it appends t
On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 01:56:07 +
Mo Zhou wrote:
> [...]
> My idea
> ---
>
> ## Motivations
I've had similar motivations. Since becoming a Trainee, I've found the review
process to be rather painful. I think the slow and klunky tools we use are a
big problem and likely contribute significa
g.
> PNG image. This is not a BUG, as ftp-masters indeed checks the
> possible metadata in a binary file to make sure whether there is
> extra copyright/license info. But this is something needs to be
> improved...
See "data-miner" added to https://wiki.debian.org/
Hi fellow devs,
I created an amount of NEW packages as a DD, and reviewed an amount of NEW
packages in the NEW queue as FTP trainee. Both of the two kinds of work
involves an important part -- sometimes annoying -- license checking. People
keeps complaining about it, and recently there were some
On 08/12/2019 13:27, JungHwan Kang wrote:
Hi, forks.
I appreciate your previous answer to my question about the open-source
licenses.
May I ask another question?
1. Is it no matter who releases his Linux distribution under his license
for commercially?
the distribution is made of
Hi, forks.
I appreciate your previous answer to my question about the open-source
licenses.
May I ask another question?
1. Is it no matter who releases his Linux distribution under his license
for commercially?
the distribution is made of modified and unmodified packages from
upstream.
2
On Sun, Dec 08, 2019 at 04:37:28PM +0900, JungHwan Kang wrote:
> Thank you for your detailed answer. :)
> I'm gonna ask one more question, please.
I don't see a question below.
> I was confused Ubuntu cannot have an overall license, because of the
> license of Ubuntu as bel
Thank you for your detailed answer. :)
I'm gonna ask one more question, please.
> At least this is not the case of Debian. As I previously said, Debian as a
> distribution or any other distributions *cannot* have an overall license.
> Every distribution is made up of various so
Quoting Andrey Rahmatullin (2019-12-05 17:04:24)
> On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 10:57:43AM -0500, Boyuan Yang wrote:
> > > For instance, GPLv2 & GPLv3 are incompatible.
> >
> > I never heard that GPLv2 license and GPLv3 license are incompatible.
> They are.
> https:/
Le 05/12/2019 à 16:57, Boyuan Yang a écrit :
>> There are many packages having a different license in the Debian
>> distribution.
>> How to resolve a conflict between licenses to specify GPLv2?
>> For instance, GPLv2 & GPLv3 are incompatible.
>
> I never heard th
On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 10:57:43AM -0500, Boyuan Yang wrote:
> > For instance, GPLv2 & GPLv3 are incompatible.
>
> I never heard that GPLv2 license and GPLv3 license are incompatible.
They are.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#v2v3Compatibility
You may be thinking about
Hi,
Disclaimer: the canonical answer to license issues should be given by debian-
legal mailing list (https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal). There might be
errors in my words below.
在 2019-12-06五的 00:10 +0900，JungHwan Kang写道：
> Hi, Debian forks.
> I know Debian has GPLv2.
My pe
On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 12:10:30AM +0900, JungHwan Kang wrote:
> I know Debian has GPLv2.
This is most likely not true, depending on what do you mean by that.
> There are many packages having a different license in the Debian distribution.
> How to resolve a conflict between licenses t
Hi, Debian forks.
I know Debian has GPLv2.
There are many packages having a different license in the Debian distribution.
How to resolve a conflict between licenses to specify GPLv2?
For instance, GPLv2 & GPLv3 are incompatible.
Thanks :)
Best regards
On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 11:52:11PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> However, if you're worried you could patch in an extra bit of commentary
> in the header files. There's no need to repack the original tarball for
> this, and you mustn't remove the MIT licence notices (doing so would
> likely itself
in the archives. Since then, upstream has
> >> switched to an MIT license, but with the caveat that many parts of the
> >> code has GPL dependencies and that "for practical purposes this code is
> >> GPL-3 for the user" [1].
> >>
> >> Instead
Sorry Gary,
i just make a mistake - you can't relicense MIT(X11) stuff - it would
work only with some BSD files. You could modify the license (just as in
ncurses) and be done with - i would like to recommend not to do so.
Cheers
Alf
❦ 24 septembre 2019 10:41 +02, Gard Spreemann :
> A package I maintain (src:gudhi) was mostly under GPL-3+ up to and
> including the current version in the archives. Since then, upstream has
> switched to an MIT license, but with the caveat that many parts of the
> code has GPL depe
Plain no. If they are really interested they would know that they can
use every MIT part under GPL because of license compatibilty. Things
change dramatically if you would consider to change the licenses of the
files - if one would contribute to your now forked files the original
project would
Colin Watson writes:
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 10:41:07AM +0200, Gard Spreemann wrote:
>> A package I maintain (src:gudhi) was mostly under GPL-3+ up to and
>> including the current version in the archives. Since then, upstream has
>> switched to an MIT license, but with
Filippo Rusconi writes:
> Greetings,
>
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 10:41:07AM +0200, Gard Spreemann wrote:
>>Hello,
>>
>>A package I maintain (src:gudhi) was mostly under GPL-3+ up to and
>>including the current version in the archives. Since then, upstream has
On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 10:41:07AM +0200, Gard Spreemann wrote:
> A package I maintain (src:gudhi) was mostly under GPL-3+ up to and
> including the current version in the archives. Since then, upstream has
> switched to an MIT license, but with the caveat that many parts of the
>
Greetings,
On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 10:41:07AM +0200, Gard Spreemann wrote:
Hello,
A package I maintain (src:gudhi) was mostly under GPL-3+ up to and
including the current version in the archives. Since then, upstream has
switched to an MIT license, but with the caveat that many parts of the
Hello,
A package I maintain (src:gudhi) was mostly under GPL-3+ up to and
including the current version in the archives. Since then, upstream has
switched to an MIT license, but with the caveat that many parts of the
code has GPL dependencies and that "for practical purposes this code is
Hi,
On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 at 11:34, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> On 18/07/2019 14:42, Andrej Shadura wrote:
> > really used any of that software. Daniel was the other member, but I
> > can’t imagine him going back to package maintenance any time soon.
> Why would you write something offensive like that
On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 1:12 AM Seth McClain wrote:
> xTuple recently took most of their git repos off of github and is
> changing the license to much of the code moving forward.
>
> https://xtuple.com/blog/ned/free-software
>
> Debian currently offers builds of Po
Hello,
xTuple recently took most of their git repos off of github and is
changing the license to much of the code moving forward.
https://xtuple.com/blog/ned/free-software
Debian currently offers builds of Postbooks.
https://salsa.debian.org/xtuple-maintainers-team
It would be a shame for the
Hi,
On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 at 10:41, Paul Wise wrote:
> In 2016 Kate Stewart from the Linux Foundation was working on
> packaging FOSSology, is this a continuation of that effort or a
> parallel effort?
>
This is the continuation of the effort.
Please read through the guides:
>
> https://mentors.
On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 11:15 PM Gaurav Mishra wrote:
> ITP: fossology -- FOSSology is an open source license compliance software
> system and toolkit.
...
> - Why is this package useful/relevant?
>- FOSSology is a famous tool used for open source license compliance.
>
Hello,
On Sat 16 Mar 2019 at 07:07PM +0100, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 05:00:30PM +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
>> On Sat, 2019-03-16 at 08:16 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > On Sat 16 Mar 2019 at 10:17AM +08, Paul Wise wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Sat, Mar 16, 2019
On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 05:00:30PM +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On Sat, 2019-03-16 at 08:16 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Sat 16 Mar 2019 at 10:17AM +08, Paul Wise wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 6:06 AM Guillem Jover wrote:
> > >
> > > > $ deb-why-removed fossolog
On Sat, 2019-03-16 at 08:16 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Sat 16 Mar 2019 at 10:17AM +08, Paul Wise wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 6:06 AM Guillem Jover wrote:
> >
> > > $ deb-why-removed fossology
> >
> > I think this script would be a good addition to devscripts, could
> >
Hello,
On Sat 16 Mar 2019 at 10:17AM +08, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 6:06 AM Guillem Jover wrote:
>
>> $ deb-why-removed fossology
>
> I think this script would be a good addition to devscripts, could you
> file a bug about that?
Very much seconded. Could you at least share a co
me : fossology
> > Version : 3.4.0
> > Upstream Author : Michael Jaeger
> > URL : https://www.fossology.org/
> > License : GPL-2.0-only, LGPL-2.1-only
> > Programming Lang: C, C++, PHP
> > Description : FOSSology is an open source license compliance softw
On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 6:06 AM Guillem Jover wrote:
> $ deb-why-removed fossology
I think this script would be a good addition to devscripts, could you
file a bug about that?
--
bye,
pabs
https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Hi!
On Fri, 2019-03-15 at 20:27:57 +0530, Gaurav Mishra wrote:
> Package: wnpp
> Severity: wishlist
> Owner: Gaurav Mishra
> Package name : fossology
> Version : 3.4.0
> Upstream Author : Michael Jaeger
> URL : https://www.fossology.org/
> License : GPL
[Adding 924...@bugs.debian.org to CC]
Gaurav Mishra wrote:
> Package: wnpp
> Severity: wishlist
> Owner: Gaurav Mishra
For debian-devel, this got filed as:
https://bugs.debian.org/924659
Guarav, just a friendly note to say that you CC'd debian-devel explicitly
when filing this bug instead o
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Gaurav Mishra
Package name : fossology
Version : 3.4.0
Upstream Author : Michael Jaeger
URL : https://www.fossology.org/
License : GPL-2.0-only, LGPL-2.1-only
Programming Lang: C, C++, PHP
Description : FOSSology is an open source license
Paul Hardy writes ("Unicode License Additional Coverage"):
> Unicode, Inc. has informed me that they just added the directory
> http://www.unicode.org/ivd/data/ to the list of directories explicitly
> mentioned as covered by their license; see
> http://www.unicode.org/
Yao Wei,
On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 9:18 PM "Yao Wei (魏銘廷)" wrote:
>
> Never mind. I was wrongfully read as the license has the problem.
>
> (It is that, IVD files had no license attached to it, someone might think it
> is "All rights reserved" by copyrigh
Never mind. I was wrongfully read as the license has the problem.
(It is that, IVD files had no license attached to it, someone might think it is
"All rights reserved" by copyright law in most jurisdictions. Please correct me
if I am wrong again.)
Yao Wei
(This email is sent fr
Hi,
Could you elaborate what part of license that someone might have concern?
It looks like X11 license for me at the first glance.
Yao Wei
(This email is sent from a phone; sorry for HTML email if it happens.)
> On Jan 4, 2019, at 04:49, Paul Hardy wrote:
>
> Dear Debian,
>
Dear Debian,
Unicode, Inc. has informed me that they just added the directory
http://www.unicode.org/ivd/data/ to the list of directories explicitly
mentioned as covered by their license; see
http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html#License.
Among other files, that directory contains
On Sat, Jun 2, 2018 at 4:37 PM, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Hello Bastien and others,
>
> On Sat, Jun 02 2018, Bastien ROUCARIÈS wrote:
>
>> It will first detect minified javascript/css embedded in html file
>> (source only). It it possible to avoid this warning by creating a
>> symlink
>> to source or
Hello Bastien and others,
On Sat, Jun 02 2018, Bastien ROUCARIÈS wrote:
> It will first detect minified javascript/css embedded in html file
> (source only). It it possible to avoid this warning by creating a
> symlink
> to source or adding source under
> debian/missing-source/$nameoffile.fragm
Hi,
Newest lintian will detect a few new problems in our package.
It will first detect minified javascript/css embedded in html file (source
only). It it possible to avoid this warning by creating a symlink
to source or adding source under debian/missing-source/$nameoffile.fragment
(better nam
* License : Artistic or GPL-1+
Programming Lang: Perl
Description : More utilities and a summary for Software::License
Software::LicenseMoreUtils Perl module provides more utilities for
Software::License:
* more short keyword to create license object
* license summaries that point to
Ben Hutchings writes ("Re: nmap license is incompatible with GPL"):
> On Tue, 2018-04-10 at 11:42 +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> > The license in particular also forbids front-ends parsing nmap's output
> > that are released under a license not compatible with n
On Tue, 2018-04-10 at 11:42 +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> [ BCC'ed maintainers of packages mentioned below ]
>
> Chris Lamb pointed out that nmap uses a special version of the GPL-2
> which is incompatible with the standard GPL license:
>
> +---
>
Hi,
[ BCC'ed maintainers of packages mentioned below ]
Chris Lamb pointed out that nmap uses a special version of the GPL-2
which is incompatible with the standard GPL license:
+---
| Because this license imposes special exceptions to the GPL, Covered
| work may not be combined (even as pa
On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 07:21:21PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> adequate has an incompatible-licenses tag that probably could be used
> for this. Just install all rdeps of cups and check all packages on the
> system with adequate.
piuparts.debian.org does this automatically (obviously only for stuff
On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 3:20 PM, Stuart Prescott wrote:
> I thought there might be something that could be done here.
adequate has an incompatible-licenses tag that probably could be used
for this. Just install all rdeps of cups and check all packages on the
system with adequate.
--
bye,
pabs
27;m sure we've got graph
walking code in the archive somewhere that might help…
For those in need of amusement, code at
https://salsa.debian.org/stuart/package-license-checker
and all relevant copyright files (current as of unstable today) from the
packages analysed at
http
(Adding d-legal)
Didier 'OdyX' Raboud writes ("CUPS GPL → Apache license change, how to
proceed?"):
> tl,dr; CUPS has moved from "GPL-2.0 with AOSDL exception" to
> "Apache-2.0"; how should the license incompatibilities be enforced?
This reply is g
tl,dr; CUPS has moved from "GPL-2.0 with AOSDL exception" to "Apache-2.0"; how
should the license incompatibilities be enforced?
As you might have heard [lwn][cups-apache], Apple has changed the CUPS license
away from a "GPL-2/LGPL-2 with exceptions" to plain Apa
hould not require --force here as earlier License: MPL-2.0
> lines have empty license text and cme should not remove those lines in
> the final output (I have to add back 'License: MPL-2.0' lines removed by
> cme).
Agreed -> https://github.com/dod38fr/config-model/issues/15
t's use the same terminology as debian/copyright. I meant the section
made of one or more "Stand-alone License paragraph" [1] . This one was
missing from the file, the CeCILL license was not defined, hence the file was
considered as invalid by cme.
> > May be I should just d
g part).
Original copyright file,
__
Files: *
Copyright: 2017 Mozilla Developer Network
License: MPL-2.0
Files: debian/*
Copyright: 2017 Pirate Praveen
License: MPL-2.0
__
cme run paste-license --arg license=MPL-2.0 --arg file=LICENSE --force
I
1 - 100 of 959 matches
Mail list logo
