In a discussion on #fink today, we arrived at the following plan. A
non-opensource license would either be labeled
License: Restrictive
(as done currently), or
License: Restrictive/Distributable
The second one would be used when it is OK for Fink to distribute a binary,
even though the
Le vendredi, 17 jan 2003, à 16:37 Europe/Paris, David R. Morrison a
écrit :
In a discussion on #fink today, we arrived at the following plan. A
non-opensource license would either be labeled
License: Restrictive
(as done currently), or
License: Restrictive/Distributable
The second one
With an eye towards constructing an automated build system for the binary
distribution one of these days, I'd like to propose a new field for fink
.info files:
BinaryDistribution: True/False or Yes/No
This field would only be consulted if the package is labeled
License: Restrictive
and in that
On Donnerstag, Januar 16, 2003, at 04:36 Uhr, David R. Morrison wrote:
BinaryDistribution: True/False or Yes/No
Sounds good. I would go for True/False and default to False.
This field would only be consulted if the package is labeled
License: Restrictive
and in that case, it would
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
David R. Morrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
With an eye towards constructing an automated build system for the binary
distribution one of these days, I'd like to propose a new field for fink
.info files:
BinaryDistribution: True/False or Yes/No
OK, suppose we just introduce the license category Distributible, and in
the docs explain that Distributible covers non-open source licenses which
allow Fink to distribute binaries.
-- Dave
---
This SF.NET email is sponsored by: Thawte.com
