Re: Packaging text licenses

On Sun, 15 Dec 2019 14:25:47 +0100 Jonas Smedegaard wrote: [...] > As others in this thread have pointed out, Debian explicitly omits > classifying license fulltexts as "free software" or "non-free software". Frankly speaking, I cannot find a message in this thread where others pointed out that

Re: Packaging text licenses

On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 9:25 PM Thomas Goirand wrote: > If we are already shipping the license (non-free) text as part of > packages, what difference would it make to have them all shipped in a > single package? Can't the exception also apply to that one package Jonas > is suggesting? One differe

Re: Packaging text licenses

Quoting Thomas Goirand (2019-12-17 22:24:56) > On 12/15/19 10:21 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > Quoting Andrey Rahmatullin (2019-12-15 21:02:19) > >> On Sun, Dec 15, 2019 at 02:25:47PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > >>> As others in this thread have pointed out, Debian explicitly omits > >>> cl

Re: Packaging text licenses

On 12/15/19 10:21 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > Quoting Andrey Rahmatullin (2019-12-15 21:02:19) >> On Sun, Dec 15, 2019 at 02:25:47PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: >>> As others in this thread have pointed out, Debian explicitly omits >>> classifying license fulltexts as "free software" or "non-

Re: Packaging text licenses

Quoting Andrey Rahmatullin (2019-12-15 21:02:19) > On Sun, Dec 15, 2019 at 02:25:47PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > As others in this thread have pointed out, Debian explicitly omits > > classifying license fulltexts as "free software" or "non-free > > software". > Where does it explicitly d

Re: Packaging text licenses

On Sun, Dec 15, 2019 at 02:25:47PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > As others in this thread have pointed out, Debian explicitly omits > classifying license fulltexts as "free software" or "non-free software". Where does it explicitly do that? We do that implicitly. -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc

Re: Packaging text licenses

On Sun, Dec 15, 2019 at 09:05:19AM -0500, jrb3-beckenbach.us wrote: > A subset of the more general “can Debian core ship non-free *data*”. Officially no, as already mentioned in this thread. > Perhaps an argument this is really shipping a convenience *cache* of > freely-available read-only texts.

Re: Packaging text licenses

Greetings, all! [Lurker in the Debian space, decloaking to ask a clarification.] On 15 Dec 2019, at 07:01, Francesco Poli wrote: > > But can DFSG-free data be prepared for the test suite of a program > intended to identify licenses?!? How can I test whether the program is > able to identify CC-

Re: Packaging text licenses

Quoting Francesco Poli (2019-12-15 13:01:16) > On Sat, 14 Dec 2019 17:41:14 +0100 Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > > Quoting Francesco Poli (2019-12-14 17:22:09) > [...] > > > I don't think the exception may also apply when the license text > > > is the *actual payload* of the package (for instance, a

Re: Packaging text licenses

On Sat, 14 Dec 2019 17:41:14 +0100 Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > Quoting Francesco Poli (2019-12-14 17:22:09) [...] > > I don't think the exception may also apply when the license text is > > the *actual payload* of the package (for instance, a package shipping > > the text for CC-by-nc-nd-v1.0, whe

Re: Packaging text licenses

On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 05:22:09PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: > A number of license texts are not themselves licensed under DFSG-free > terms. > > And Debian promises to remain 100 % free, see [SC] #1. Any content of a > Debian package (in main) must be free according to the DFSG. Sure. > Licen

Re: Packaging text licenses

Francesco Poli writes: > A number of license texts are not themselves licensed under DFSG-free > terms. For example, the GNU General Public License. Copyright (C) 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc. Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this licens

Re: Packaging text licenses

Quoting Francesco Poli (2019-12-14 17:22:09) > On Sat, 14 Dec 2019 14:01:18 +0100 Baptiste BEAUPLAT wrote: > > > On 12/14/19 1:03 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > > A rich collection of Free license fulltexts is relevant, not only > > > for our users to pick from (even on a lonely island) and copy

Re: Packaging text licenses

On Sat, 14 Dec 2019 14:01:18 +0100 Baptiste BEAUPLAT wrote: > On 12/14/19 1:03 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > A rich collection of Free license fulltexts is relevant, not only for > > our users to pick from (even on a lonely island) and copy into new > > development project, but also as referen

Re: Packaging text licenses

Quoting Baptiste BEAUPLAT (2019-12-14 15:12:38) > On 12/14/19 2:01 PM, Baptiste BEAUPLAT wrote: > > On 12/14/19 1:03 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > >> A rich collection of Free license fulltexts is relevant, not only > >> for our users to pick from (even on a lonely island) and copy into > >> new

Re: Packaging text licenses

On 12/14/19 2:01 PM, Baptiste BEAUPLAT wrote: > On 12/14/19 1:03 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: >> A rich collection of Free license fulltexts is relevant, not only for >> our users to pick from (even on a lonely island) and copy into new >> development project, but also as reference e.g. for testin

Re: Packaging text licenses

On 12/14/19 1:03 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > A rich collection of Free license fulltexts is relevant, not only for > our users to pick from (even on a lonely island) and copy into new > development project, but also as reference e.g. for testing license > checkers. > > What is _not_ helpful i

Re: Packaging text licenses

Hi Baptiste, Quoting Baptiste BEAUPLAT (2019-12-14 11:55:40) > Yesterday, I was looking for the CC-BY license text to start a new > project. > > I had to dig up to CreativeCommons's github repository to find the > text version. (I didn't want to copy/paste the HTML version on their > website).

Re: Packaging text licenses

On 12/14/19 12:27 PM, Andrius Merkys wrote: > It's https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode.txt. One just > has to add .txt suffix to legal code link URL. Ah thanks Andrius, I was completely oblivious to that. -- Baptiste BEAUPLAT - lyknode signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digi

Re: Packaging text licenses

Hi Baptiste, On Sat, 14 Dec 2019, 13:04 Baptiste BEAUPLAT, wrote: > I had to dig up to CreativeCommons's github repository to find the text > version. (I didn't want to copy/paste the HTML version on their website). > It's https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode.txt. One just has

Packaging text licenses

Hi all, Yesterday, I was looking for the CC-BY license text to start a new project. I had to dig up to CreativeCommons's github repository to find the text version. (I didn't want to copy/paste the HTML version on their website). My question to you is: "Would it be interesting for others if I we