Conversation

Notices

Embed this notice
Laurent (gigoince@diaspodon.fr)'s status on Saturday, 02-Dec-2023 20:31:54 JST Laurent

Dis-moi :mastodon: à part evince, tu conseilles quoi comme lecteur de pdf ?
[EDIT : j'ai installé Okular, et ça fonctionne, merci à vous.]

In conversation about a year ago from diaspodon.fr permalink
- Embed this notice
  Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell: (lanodan@queer.hacktivis.me)'s status on Saturday, 02-Dec-2023 20:31:40 JST Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell:
  in reply to
  @breizh @Gigoince @niavy @lord Ou que Arch arrête d'être le seul à considérer tout fichier de license avec attribution comme une license custom (ce qui empêche pas d'installer quand même le texte de licence après coup). Parceque pour le coup coté packager, au final tu finis par reconnaître entre BSD/ISC/MIT/ZLIB, ou alors c'est noté dans le README / nom du fichier, surtout si ça suit REUSE (que les projets modernes devraient suivre).
  
  In conversation about a year ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  Breizh (breizh@pleroma.breizh.pm)'s status on Saturday, 02-Dec-2023 20:31:42 JST Breizh
  in reply to
  - Niavy :bearn: :verified:
  - Lord
  @lord @Gigoince @niavy C’est dommage que ce soit pas indiqué quelque part comme pour beaucoup d’autres. Ce serait plus facile de la reconnaître.
  
  In conversation about a year ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  Lord (lord@pleroma.lord.re)'s status on Saturday, 02-Dec-2023 20:31:44 JST Lord
  in reply to
  - Breizh
  - Niavy :bearn: :verified:
  @breizh @Gigoince @niavy C'est la zlib qui est bien une licence libre et approuvée comme tel par la FSF : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zlib_License
  In conversation about a year ago permalink
  Attachments
  1. No result found on File_thumbnail lookup.
    
    Zlib License
    
    The zlib license is a permissive free software license which defines the terms under which the zlib software library can be distributed. It is also used by many other free software packages. The libpng library uses a similar license sometimes referred interchangeably as zlib/libpng license. The zlib license has been approved by the Free Software Foundation (FSF) as a free software license, and by the Open Source Initiative (OSI) as an open source license. It is compatible with the GNU General Public License. Terms The license only has the following points to be accounted for: Software is used on 'as-is' basis. Authors are not liable for any damages arising from its use. The distribution of a modified version of the software is subject to the following restrictions: The authorship of the original software must not be misrepresented, Altered source versions must not be misrepresented as being the original software, and The license notice must not be removed from source distributions.The license does not require source code to...
- Embed this notice
  Breizh (breizh@pleroma.breizh.pm)'s status on Saturday, 02-Dec-2023 20:31:45 JST Breizh
  in reply to
  @niavy @Gigoince @lord Je cite :
  Copyright (c) 2009-2020 pwmt.org This software is provided 'as-is', without any express or implied warranty. In no event will the authors be held liable for any damages arising from the use of this software. Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any purpose, including commercial applications, and to alter it and redistribute it freely, subject to the following restrictions: 1. The origin of this software must not be misrepresented; you must not claim that you wrote the original software. If you use this software in a product, an acknowledgment in the product documentation would be appreciated but is not required. 2. Altered source versions must be plainly marked as such, and must not be misrepresented as being the original software. 3. This notice may not be removed or altered from any source distribution.
  In conversation about a year ago permalink
  Attachments
  1. Domain not in remote thumbnail source whitelist: pwmt.org
    
    pwmt.org
- Embed this notice
  Breizh (breizh@pleroma.breizh.pm)'s status on Saturday, 02-Dec-2023 20:31:50 JST Breizh
  in reply to
  - Niavy :bearn: :verified:
  - Lord
  @niavy @Gigoince Ah oui, tiens, Zathura a une licence custom (avec quelques principes de logiciels libres mais je sais pas si ça suffit à le qualifier comme tel).
  @lord
  
  In conversation about a year ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  Niavy :bearn: :verified: (niavy@masto.bike)'s status on Saturday, 02-Dec-2023 20:31:51 JST Niavy :bearn: :verified:
  in reply to
  - Breizh
  @breizh @Gigoince MuPDF et Librera sont #FOSS , apparemment ni Zathura ni Okular ne le sont.
  
  In conversation about a year ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  Breizh (breizh@pleroma.breizh.pm)'s status on Saturday, 02-Dec-2023 20:31:53 JST Breizh
  in reply to
  
  @Gigoince Zathura. Ou MuPDF si Zathura est trop minimaliste à ton goût.
  
  In conversation about a year ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  Breizh (breizh@pleroma.breizh.pm)'s status on Saturday, 02-Dec-2023 22:20:22 JST Breizh
  in reply to
  @lanodan @Gigoince @niavy @lord https://rfc.archlinux.page/0016-spdx-license-identifiers/ C’est en cours.
  Pour le coup ici, le « problème » de Arch c’est juste que zlib est pas encore inclus dans les licences de base. Et oui, ça n’empêche pas d’installer le fichier de license après coup, et c’est ce qui a été fait, sauf que du coup tu sais toujours pas c’est quoi la license, elle dit pas son nom…
  Concernant Zathura, zlib n’est mentionnée ni sur le site, ni dans le README… tu finis par avoir son SPDX dans les fichiers sources, ou son nom sur le Gitlab, mais faut chercher.
  Et c’est couillon que ce soit pas dans le fichier LICENSE lui-même, je le maintiens.
  In conversation about a year ago permalink
  Attachments
  1. No result found on File_thumbnail lookup.
    
    0016 Spdx License Identifiers | Arch Linux RFCs
    
    Use SPDX license identifiers in PKGBUILDs Date proposed: 2022-11-17 RFC MR: https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/rfcs/-/merge_requests/16 Summary Change to using SPDX license identifiers in the PKGBUILD license value for packages in all repositories. Motivation The license identifiers we use have become inadequate for the large array of open-source licenses in use today, and no longer properly describe the licenses that they are meant to represent. When it was devised, there was no commonly accepted standard for license identifiers, and so it was necessary to develop one that would work for Arch's use case.
  2. Untitled attachment
  Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell: likes this.
- Embed this notice
  Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell: (lanodan@queer.hacktivis.me)'s status on Saturday, 02-Dec-2023 22:22:29 JST Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell:
  in reply to
  - Breizh
  @breizh Ah ouais, c'est pas énorme comme liste, gentoo à coté (y'en as quelques unes qui sont pas génériques ceci dit) https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/tree/licenses
  In conversation about a year ago permalink
  Attachments
  1. Domain not in remote thumbnail source whitelist: assets.gentoo.org
    
    licenses - repo/gentoo.git - Official Gentoo ebuild repository
    
    Browse the Gentoo Git repositories
- Embed this notice
  Breizh (breizh@pleroma.breizh.pm)'s status on Saturday, 02-Dec-2023 22:22:31 JST Breizh
  in reply to
  - Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell:
  - Breizh
  @lanodan https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/packaging/packages/licenses/-/blob/main/PKGBUILD?ref_type=heads#L54-155 pour l’instant y’a « que » ces licences qui sont dispos de base.
  In conversation about a year ago permalink
  Attachments
  1. Domain not in remote thumbnail source whitelist: gitlab.archlinux.org
    
    PKGBUILD · main · Arch Linux / Packaging / Packages / licenses · GitLab
    
    GitLab Enterprise Edition

Public

Conversation

Notices

Feeds