coapp-developers team mailing list archive

[Garrett Serack <garretts@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Sweet mercy that's a hell of a spec...

In 1.0, we're not going to get to anything like this. 

In 2.0 -- I can see looking into this (or something like it). Making software easy (ie, programmatically) to validate for compliance is a really valuable feature, but we're a long way from that point :D

G

-----Original Message-----
From: coapp-developers-bounces+garretts=microsoft.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:coapp-developers-bounces+garretts=microsoft.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Adam Baxter
Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2011 2:35 PM
To: Fredrik Sundqvist
Cc: coapp-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Coapp-developers] CoApp and

I'd just stick with a LICENCE file in the package, and use a parser like Debian's build system does (matches common licences)

This just sounds like complication for complication's sake.

Interesting idea though.

--Adam

_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~coapp-developers
Post to     : coapp-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~coapp-developers
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp