On Tue, 25 Sep 2012, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
I've created licenses/HPND [1] now, and added it to the @OSI-APPROVED
group. So packages whose license matches this template can be changed
from as-is to HPND. (And please, _only_ OSD-compliant packages.
We don't want the same mess again, as we have
Related issue: Many metapackages are marked as-is. If they install
no files at all, then they should technically have the empty string
as LICENSE. Which is forbidden by repoman.
Alternatively, we could introduce an own metapackage license label
for these packages (suggested by Matija Šuklje to
Ulrich Mueller posted on Sat, 06 Oct 2012 16:14:57 +0200 as excerpted:
Alternatively, we could introduce an own metapackage license label for
these packages (suggested by Matija Šuklje to licenses@g.o) and add it
to the appropriate license groups. Text would be as follows:
╓[
On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 19:38:50 -0400
Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 5:21 PM, Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org
wrote:
The license isn't binary-only. The license is BSD. It just happens
that the thing they're licensing is the binary and not the source.
Does it
Ulrich Mueller schrieb:
I've created licenses/HPND [1] now, and added it to the @OSI-APPROVED
group. So packages whose license matches this template can be changed
from as-is to HPND. (And please, _only_ OSD-compliant packages.
We don't want the same mess again, as we have with as-is.)
I have
On Sat, 29 Sep 2012, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
I have one question: The license can be GPL-compatible but the
software itself non-free. So binary-only packages distributed under
e.g. BSD license should remain BSD or not?
Yes, if it's BSD licensed then it should have LICENSE=BSD.
On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 5:21 PM, Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sat, 29 Sep 2012, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
If we start to measure the software freedom of the code inside the
package, then maybe LICENSE is the wrong variable to express this.
I'm aware that we can't
I've created licenses/HPND [1] now, and added it to the @OSI-APPROVED
group. So packages whose license matches this template can be changed
from as-is to HPND. (And please, _only_ OSD-compliant packages.
We don't want the same mess again, as we have with as-is.)
I'll also remove as-is from
On 25/09/2012 04:04, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
I've created licenses/HPND [1] now, and added it to the @OSI-APPROVED
group. So packages whose license matches this template can be changed
from as-is to HPND. (And please, _only_ OSD-compliant packages.
We don't want the same mess again, as we have
On Tue, 2012-09-25 at 13:04 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
I'll also remove as-is from @GPL-COMPATIBLE and @OSI-APPROVED again,
as soon as all packages in the system set have been fixed (only
net-misc/openssh and sys-apps/man-pages). It shouldn't have been added
to these groups, in the first
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Alexandre Rostovtsev
tetrom...@gentoo.org wrote:
If as-is will be removed from @GPL_COMPATIBLE, what gpl-compatible
license should I use instead for such packages?
HPND as long as the license meets the description within the file. If
you've been applying the
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
I've created licenses/HPND [1] now, and added it to the @OSI-APPROVED
group. So packages whose license matches this template can be changed
from as-is to HPND. (And please, _only_ OSD-compliant packages.
We don't want the same mess again, as we
12 matches
Mail list logo
