Neil McGovern writes:
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 12:53:58PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> > That would be premature. As I understand it, we're waiting on (and I'm
> > actively soliciting) input for other purposes of the information in the
> > ‘debian/copyright’ file; not least from the legal counsel
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 12:53:58PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> That would be premature. As I understand it, we're waiting on (and I'm
> actively soliciting) input for other purposes of the information in the
> ‘debian/copyright’ file; not least from the legal counsel at SPI.
>
I could be wrong, bu
Manoj Srivastava writes:
> Tracking the potentially hundreds of files with © notices that
> make up the binary or the libraries is not something I am likely to
> do. People looking for that information can inspect the sources, or ask
> upstream, directly.
Or use fossology
HTH
--
To
ke, 2009-04-15 kello 10:33 +0200, Josselin Mouette kirjoitti:
> Le mercredi 15 avril 2009 à 09:32 +1000, Ben Finney a écrit :
> > Sune Vuorela writes:
> >
> > > I do wish that you would once try to look into the problems at hand
> >
> > That *is* what I'm doing.
>
> Obviously not. Maintainers k
Le mercredi 15 avril 2009 à 09:32 +1000, Ben Finney a écrit :
> Sune Vuorela writes:
>
> > I do wish that you would once try to look into the problems at hand
>
> That *is* what I'm doing.
Obviously not. Maintainers keep explaining that your suggestions are not
applicable, maybe you should try
+ Ben Finney (Wed, 15 Apr 2009 08:44:48 +1000):
> Sune Vuorela writes:
> > How is your work on a useful summary of kdebase-workspace going ?
> I do wish this tiresome rhetorical non-argument would stop cropping up.
> Are we not able to discuss the purpose of ‘debian/copyright’ without the
> fal
Neil Williams writes:
> No, the consensus - as expressed by myself and Manoj in this thread
> and by the vast majority of debian/copyright files on your own system
> - is that debian/copyright is primarily about the licences.
Thank you for explaining your position; I think I understand you bette
Sune Vuorela writes:
> I do wish that you would once try to look into the problems at hand
That *is* what I'm doing.
--
\ “When I wake up in the morning, I just can't get started until |
`\ I've had that first, piping hot pot of coffee. Oh, I've tried |
_o__)
On 2009-04-14, Ben Finney wrote:
> Sune Vuorela writes:
>
>> How is your work on a useful summary of kdebase-workspace going ?
>
> I do wish this tiresome rhetorical non-argument would stop cropping up.
I do wish that you would once try to look into the problems at hand
before telling other peop
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 08:50:58 +1000
Ben Finney wrote:
> Neil Williams writes:
>
> > Consensus can also be gleaned from the common practice of packages
> > already in main. It is extremely common to find debian/copyright
> > contains a single list of copyright holder details and a single
> > lice
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 08:10:12 +1000
Ben Finney wrote:
> Neil Williams writes:
>
> > Because it's a useless waste of time to make a spurious distinction
> > where none needs to exist.
>
> We seem to largely be talking past each other.
>
> > Unless the files are under different licences, there i
On Tue, Apr 14 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Ben Finney writes:
>> Matthias Julius writes:
>
>>> It is exactly what you would get if someone would merge the three files
>>> into one. Suddenly, the copyright statements cover the whole of the
>>> contents of all three files and you couldn't knwow an
Neil Williams writes:
> Consensus can also be gleaned from the common practice of packages
> already in main. It is extremely common to find debian/copyright
> contains a single list of copyright holder details and a single
> licence statement, no matter how those copyright details are actually
>
Sune Vuorela writes:
> How is your work on a useful summary of kdebase-workspace going ?
I do wish this tiresome rhetorical non-argument would stop cropping up.
Are we not able to discuss the purpose of ‘debian/copyright’ without the
false dichotomy of “have you solved all the problems yet”?
--
On 2009-04-14, Ben Finney wrote:
> Russ Allbery writes:
>
>> If we wanted to be absolutely faithful in preserving all information
>> about upstream copyright and licensing in the debian/copyright file,
>> we could just put a tarball of the entire upstream source in there.
>
> That, too, would IMO
Russ Allbery writes:
> If we wanted to be absolutely faithful in preserving all information
> about upstream copyright and licensing in the debian/copyright file,
> we could just put a tarball of the entire upstream source in there.
That, too, would IMO fail the “usefully preserve” test. I had b
Neil Williams writes:
> Because it's a useless waste of time to make a spurious distinction
> where none needs to exist.
We seem to largely be talking past each other.
> Unless the files are under different licences, there is no reason to
> subdivide the copyright statements.
This, though, see
Ben Finney writes:
> Matthias Julius writes:
>> It is exactly what you would get if someone would merge the three files
>> into one. Suddenly, the copyright statements cover the whole of the
>> contents of all three files and you couldn't knwow anymore what is by
>> whom. Would the copyright sta
Ben Finney writes:
> Matthias Julius writes:
>
>> It is exactly what you would get if someone would merge the three
>> files into one. Suddenly, the copyright statements cover the whole of
>> the contents of all three files and you couldn't knwow anymore what is
>> by whom. Would the copyright s
Noah Slater writes:
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 07:27:33PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
>> > Does Files: *.c mean that everything below applies equally to all
>> > files that match the pattern or does it mean that the statement
>> > includes a summary of all files that match the pattern?
>>
>> Before t
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 23:54:24 +1000
Ben Finney wrote:
> Matthias Julius writes:
>
> > It is exactly what you would get if someone would merge the three
> > files into one. Suddenly, the copyright statements cover the whole of
> > the contents of all three files and you couldn't knwow anymore wha
Matthias Julius writes:
> It is exactly what you would get if someone would merge the three
> files into one. Suddenly, the copyright statements cover the whole of
> the contents of all three files and you couldn't knwow anymore what is
> by whom. Would the copyright statement be less true?
But,
Ben Finney writes:
> This seems a useful summary:
>
> Neil Williams writes:
>
>> AFAICT it is perfectly acceptable for debian/copyright to collapse
>> those to:
>>
>> > Files: *.c
>> > Copyright: 2006, 2008 Mr. X
>> > Copyright: 2005 Mr. Y
>> > License: GPL2+
>>
>> There is no collapsing o
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 12:52:55PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> The threshold is fuzzy - it's constructed from an abstract sense of
> what the maintainer feels is suitable and what the upstream decide to
> put into particular files, commonly AUTHORS. Upstream do not include
> the copyright details
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 07:27:33PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> > Does Files: *.c mean that everything below applies equally to all
> > files that match the pattern or does it mean that the statement
> > includes a summary of all files that match the pattern?
>
> Before this thread, I was under the u
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 19:27:33 +1000
Ben Finney wrote:
> This seems a useful summary:
>
> Neil Williams writes:
>
> > Does Files: *.c mean that everything below applies equally to all
> > files that match the pattern or does it mean that the statement
> > includes a summary of all files that mat
This seems a useful summary:
Neil Williams writes:
> Does Files: *.c mean that everything below applies equally to all
> files that match the pattern or does it mean that the statement
> includes a summary of all files that match the pattern?
Before this thread, I was under the unquestioning as
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 17:22:06 +1000
Ben Finney wrote:
> (the discussion seems to have some new wrinkles, so including
> ‘debian-devel’ again)
OK, but probably best to drop -mentors at this stage.
For the benefit of -devel, the original question relates to these
example files:
Files: foo.c
Cop
(the discussion seems to have some new wrinkles, so including
‘debian-devel’ again)
Neil Williams writes:
> On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 09:45:19 +1000
> Ben Finney wrote:
>
> > Matthias Julius writes:
> >
> > > In the light of the recent discussion about debian/copyright on -devel
> > > I am wonderi
29 matches
Mail list logo
