Le 03/09/2009 23:27, Mounir Lamouri a écrit :
But the content of the license is the same. That only means you can use
a newer one.
I mean we do not need a new license file for that. It's up to upstream
to write somewhere if it's GPL-2 or GPL-2+, am I right ?

Yes, that's for upstream to figure out. For instance, the kernel is GPL-2 only while some other pacakges are 2+.

I don't want to sound like an ass, but that's why I think we shouldn't bother too much with LICENSE and all that stuff.

We're not _lawyers_. None of us can guarantee that :
1) the LICENSE field in our ebuilds are correctly set according to what upstream says. 2) that the actual code of the package is indeed under that license and not tainted by some other code.

For instance, I'm still working on migrating all the X11 packages to the "MIT" license (mainly for cleaning purposes), but in fact, each and every package should have its own license file (like today) because the MIT license requires that we acknowledge all major contributions to the code. Therefore, using a template like ${PORTAGE}/licences/MIT does is probably not a good idea from a legal point of view.

And the X code being over 15 years old, only God knows who we should be thanking for this million lines of code.

While you're idea is very nice on paper, actually doing it requires much _much_ more work than just adding operators and sets to portage.


Reply via email to