Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11139 March 1977, Frank Küster wrote:
>
>> - Packages are buggy, even copyright files are. We should add a
>> machine-readable field that indicates that the rest of the machine-readable
>> information might not be correct or complete.
>
> Thats th
On 11139 March 1977, Frank Küster wrote:
> - Packages are buggy, even copyright files are. We should add a
> machine-readable field that indicates that the rest of the machine-readable
> information might not be correct or complete.
Thats the default mode, always.
--
bye Joerg
[Clint]: I'
Hi,
Sam Hocevar zoy.org> writes:
> On Sat, Aug 04, 2007, Joey Hess wrote:
[initial comment moved here to fool gmane's "you seem to be top-posting"
message]
I've come across this intersting thread only today (I was without network access
in early August). Although I haven't read everything, it
Sam Hocevar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello, I would like to gather comments about a proposal I have been
> thinking about during the GPLv2/v3 and GPLv2/CDDL discussions. I have
> finally written down what I have in mind here, and refined it with the
> help of many people on IRC:
> http:/
On Sat, Aug 04, 2007 at 07:17:59PM +0200, Sam Hocevar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hello, I would like to gather comments about a proposal I have been
> thinking about during the GPLv2/v3 and GPLv2/CDDL discussions. I have
> finally written down what I have in mind here, and refined it with the
On Sat, Aug 04, 2007 at 07:17:59PM +0200, Sam Hocevar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hello, I would like to gather comments about a proposal I have been
> thinking about during the GPLv2/v3 and GPLv2/CDDL discussions. I have
> finally written down what I have in mind here, and refined it with the
François Févotte wrote:
I'm not an expert at all, so I might be wrong. I guess this would be
the case if your source package compiled a statically linked binary
against a library belonging to another source package. The licence of
the binary package would then be a combination of the licences of
Hello,
On 8/8/07, David Claughton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sorry, I don't want to be a nuisance, but this has been puzzling me for
> a few days now - I can't figure out how the license of a binary package
> compiled from a source package could not be derived by combining the
> licenses of the
Sam Hocevar wrote:
That's right, we don't know the licensing terms of binary files.
But if we stop at the "it's not sufficient" argument, we'll never get
anywhere, because it is impossible for a source package to determine the
exact licensing terms of its binary packages. I'll leave that to a
On 11102 March 1977, Sam Hocevar wrote:
> License: GPLv2+ (/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2) | MPL | LGPLv2.1
> (/usr/share/common-licenses/LGPL-2.1)
>The drawback is that the lines can now become very long, and wrapping
> them means it's no longer possible to say "first line is license list,
* Sam Hocevar:
> On Sat, Aug 04, 2007, Florian Weimer wrote:
>
>> It's probably better to use a separate file. If there's a syntax
>> error, you can't be sure if the file is in the old format, or if its a
>> genuine error.
>
>But the information must be in debian/copyright.
Why? I don't thi
Sam Hocevar wrote:
>ACK. I edited the wiki to reflect your and Zack's view which seems to
> be the preferred way.
>
>For the sake of simplicity, I interpreted "most specific" as "matches
> the fewer files". It has the drawback of possibly changing with the
> contents of the source tree, bu
On Sat, 2007-08-04 at 19:17 +0200, Sam Hocevar wrote:
> http://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/CopyrightFormat
>
>I therefore would like your opinions about this proposal, its
> shortcomings, and a strategy to implement it quickly and as widely as
> possible.
This is great! One possible short
[Sam Hocevar]
>And there is more to come. The GPL version 3 is compatible with
> the CDDL, but the GPL version 2 isn???t. Which means that in the near
> future, GPLv2-only software cannot be distributed as part of a CDDL
> operating system such as Nexenta.
That's a rather delicate way of sayi
On Sat, Aug 04, 2007, Joey Hess wrote:
> * Others have mentioned the ordering problem that puts the main license
> last. Seems that Packaging-Copyright at the top is another case of
> this problem (see you've now removed that special case name, but the
> debian/* data would still go there). "
Mike Hommey wrote:
> Surely, any license text, be it DFSG free or not, can be reformatted.
I rather not speculate on that, or on how this license might be interpreted
legally.
This is the beginning of my license.
The License Text is all text from the first "This" in the sentence above
to
Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Aug 04, 2007 at 11:13:16PM -0700, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (...)
>> * Makes even more clear that debian/copyright is not the best place for
>> Source URLs. They rather stick out from the other data, and this would
>> be a great t
On Sat, Aug 04, 2007 at 11:13:16PM -0700, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(...)
> * Having to munge the license text to fit it in the 822 format is one of
> the uglier bits of this proposal, especially since we don't require
> that license texts be DFSG free..
Surely, any license text, b
* Others have mentioned the ordering problem that puts the main license
last. Seems that Packaging-Copyright at the top is another case of
this problem (see you've now removed that special case name, but the
debian/* data would still go there). "Most specific matching glob wins"[1]
might be
Sam Hocevar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>And there is more to come. The GPL version 3 is compatible with
> the CDDL, but the GPL version 2 isn?t. Which means that in the near
> future, GPLv2-only software cannot be distributed as part of a CDDL
> operating system such as Nexenta. We have no way
On Sun, Aug 05, 2007 at 12:10:56AM +0200, Sam Hocevar wrote:
>I guess it all comes to whether you look at the file asking "what are
> the licenses in the package?" in which case you may prefer to see most
> common licenses first, or "what license is file XXX?" in which case you
> read the file
On Sat, Aug 04, 2007, Faidon Liambotis wrote:
> Some initial comments:
> - Even though the GPL/OpenSSL is mentioned explicitely in the rationale,
> the rest of the document doesn't mention a good way to handle it.
That has been mentioned to me several times already. I don't know yet
what the
On Sat, Aug 04, 2007, Adam Borowski wrote:
> What about providing a way to programmatically cathegorize licenses,
> something that would work for licenses other than different versions of GPL.
>
> I mean:
> * BSD4 (or "BSD4-like") for stuff with the advertising clause
> * BSD-like (as you used yo
On Sat, Aug 04, 2007, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> A comment about file patterns. For possible future needs I would go for
> specifying clearly the semantic of file patterns, for example whether if
> the first matching pattern apply to a file (as it seems in your example
> on the wikipage) or wheth
On Sat, Aug 04, 2007, Florian Weimer wrote:
> It's probably better to use a separate file. If there's a syntax
> error, you can't be sure if the file is in the old format, or if its a
> genuine error.
But the information must be in debian/copyright. Duplicating it is
not an option.
> Copyrig
On Sat, 2007-08-04 at 23:24 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> Also, it might be better to have comma separated file lists, instead of
> space separated lists. Filenames are more likely to contain spaces than
> commas (Notably, in big projects that have windows ports or that come
> from the windows world,
On Sat, Aug 04, 2007 at 11:24:49PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> Or maybe pipes, they are even more unlikely in a filename.
I remember the problem in dak where ~ was used as field separator
because nothing contained tildes anyway... until version numbers did :-)
/* Steinar */
--
Homepage: http://w
On Sat, 2007-08-04 at 19:17 +0200, Sam Hocevar wrote:
>I therefore would like your opinions about this proposal, its
> shortcomings, and a strategy to implement it quickly and as widely as
> possible.
I strongly support this initiative.
This would also allow package checkers to efficiently ve
On Sat, Aug 04, 2007 at 04:19:29PM -0400, Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 04, 2007 at 07:17:59PM +0200, Sam Hocevar wrote:
> > http://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/CopyrightFormat
>
> I really like the idea, thanks for this proposal!
>
> A comment about file patterns
* Sam Hocevar:
>Hello, I would like to gather comments about a proposal I have been
> thinking about during the GPLv2/v3 and GPLv2/CDDL discussions. I have
> finally written down what I have in mind here, and refined it with the
> help of many people on IRC:
>
> http://wiki.debian.org/Pro
On Sat, Aug 04, 2007 at 07:17:59PM +0200, Sam Hocevar wrote:
> http://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/CopyrightFormat
I really like the idea, thanks for this proposal!
A comment about file patterns. For possible future needs I would go for
specifying clearly the semantic of file patterns, for exam
On Sat, 04 Aug 2007, Sam Hocevar wrote:
> I therefore would like your opinions about this proposal, its
> shortcomings, and a strategy to implement it quickly and as widely
> as possible.
One of the other good points of this proposal is that it explicitely
indicates the copyright and licensing of
On Sat, Aug 04, 2007, Russ Allbery wrote:
> It overall seems reasonable to me, although it surfaces other issues that
> we've been somewhat ignoring. For example, with a format for clearly
> expressing copyrights that vary per file, it raises the question if we
> should be noting such things. Mo
Sam Hocevar wrote:
>Hello, I would like to gather comments about a proposal I have been
> thinking about during the GPLv2/v3 and GPLv2/CDDL discussions. I have
> finally written down what I have in mind here, and refined it with the
> help of many people on IRC:
>
> http://wiki.debian.org
On Sat, Aug 04, 2007 at 07:17:59PM +0200, Sam Hocevar wrote:
>Hello, I would like to gather comments about a proposal I have been
> thinking about during the GPLv2/v3 and GPLv2/CDDL discussions. I have
> finally written down what I have in mind here, and refined it with the
> help of many peopl
Sam Hocevar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>I therefore would like your opinions about this proposal, its
> shortcomings, and a strategy to implement it quickly and as widely as
> possible.
It overall seems reasonable to me, although it surfaces other issues that
we've been somewhat ignoring. F
On Sat, Aug 04, 2007, Sam Hocevar wrote:
>Hello, I would like to gather comments about a proposal I have been
> thinking about during the GPLv2/v3 and GPLv2/CDDL discussions. I have
> finally written down what I have in mind here, and refined it with the
> help of many people on IRC:
> htt
On Sat, Aug 04, 2007 at 07:17:59PM +0200, Sam Hocevar wrote:
>
>I therefore would like your opinions about this proposal, its
> shortcomings, and a strategy to implement it quickly and as widely as
> possible.
>
I like it. As I read the wiki page, I came up with several
"improvements." As I
38 matches
Mail list logo
