Op 11 feb. 2011 17:35 schreef "Pierre Chapuis" <[email protected]> het volgende: > > On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 13:17:29 +0000, Michael Schubert <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> As long as the maintainer (aka copyright holder) are allowed to specify >> >> their >>> >>> own license then I'd be fine with it, though. >> >> >> Copyright holders are always allowed to publish their work under any >> additional license. No issue there. > > > Well, except when you adopt a package. Then there are two copyright > holders and things get ugly. > > I think this discussion is pointless anyway: PKGBUILDs are build recipes, > not code. They usually do not contain enough information to be license-able. > So even if someone stuck a copy of the GPL at the top of a PKGBUILD I would > simply ignore it, because he had no right to put a license on "./configure; > make; make install" or something similar in the first place. > > -- > Pierre 'catwell' Chapuis
I agree, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to license a few simple build instructions. Applied patches could be licensed but they should be compatible with the original license of the package. If someone adds a license to a PKGBUILD I woukd just simply rewrite it from scratch. It is not that it is very difficult in almost all of the cases. Ronald
