coapp-developers team mailing list archive
-
coapp-developers team
-
Mailing list archive
-
Message #01083
Re: CoApp and
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
References