* Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070706 17:46]:
> > I'm not sure I understand; would a "COPYING" file stating "this project
> > is licensed under..." be acceptable?
>
> In practice, there's so much software out there that just provides a
> license in the README file and no separate notices in ea
Paul Cager <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But Ben Finney said:
>> No, there needs to be an explicit grant of license explaining what
>> terms apply, and exactly which files comprise the work being licensed.
> I'm not sure I understand; would a "COPYING" file stating "this project
> is licensed und
On Tue, July 3, 2007 4:06 pm, Paul Cager wrote:
> On Tue, July 3, 2007 8:38 am, Andreas Barth wrote:
>> Explain it in debian/copyright, that's the proper place (the source
>> files don't actually need license statement, even though of course it
>> helps transparence and is therefore encouraged).
>
"Paul Cager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, July 3, 2007 8:38 am, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > Explain it in debian/copyright, that's the proper place (the
> > source files don't actually need license statement, even though of
> > course it helps transparence and is therefore encouraged).
>
> I
On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 04:06:11PM +0100, Paul Cager wrote:
> On Tue, July 3, 2007 8:38 am, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > Explain it in debian/copyright, that's the proper place (the source
> > files don't actually need license statement, even though of course it
> > helps transparence and is therefore
On Tue, 3 Jul 2007 16:06:11 +0100 (BST)
"Paul Cager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, July 3, 2007 8:38 am, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > Explain it in debian/copyright, that's the proper place (the source
> > files don't actually need license statement, even though of course it
> > helps transpare
On Tue, July 3, 2007 8:38 am, Andreas Barth wrote:
> Explain it in debian/copyright, that's the proper place (the source
> files don't actually need license statement, even though of course it
> helps transparence and is therefore encouraged).
I didn't realise that. I had assumed that each source
* Paul Cager ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070702 23:04]:
> I'm packaging a couple of Java libraries where the source files do not
> have any license declarations. This is being fixed in upstream's svn
> repository.
>
> I still want to package upstream's latest *release* rather than the head
> of svn, so i
On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 09:23:38PM +0100, Paul Cager wrote:
> I'm packaging a couple of Java libraries where the source files do not
> have any license declarations. This is being fixed in upstream's svn
> repository.
>
> I still want to package upstream's latest *release* rather than the head
> o
I'm packaging a couple of Java libraries where the source files do not
have any license declarations. This is being fixed in upstream's svn
repository.
I still want to package upstream's latest *release* rather than the head
of svn, so is it OK just to explain the situation in
README.Debian-source
10 matches
Mail list logo
