Ulrich Mueller schrieb:
Why not directly use the FSF freedoms:
The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does
your computing as you wish (freedom 1).
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your
On Sun, 23 Sep 2012, Rich Freeman wrote:
- net-misc/ntp: as-is looks fine as main license, although some
parts of the code are under different licenses like GPL (but I
haven't checked in detail what gets installed).
Uh, if we're distributing the sources, and they contain GPL content,
then
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 3:02 AM, Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote:
Unfortunately, it's not clear from our documentation if the LICENSE
variable applies to the source tarball or to the files that the
package installs on the user's system.
Hmm, if these aren't the same, then more likely than
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 23/09/12 08:10 AM, hasufell wrote:
On 09/23/2012 02:04 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
If we really decide to move things to a new license file, then
I'd rather avoid the name as-is because it is partly the reason
for the confusion.
I agree on
On Mon, 24 Sep 2012, Rich Freeman wrote:
I tend to interpret it in the latter sense. To illustrate why, let's
look at sci-visualization/gnuplot-4.6.0 as an example:
LICENSE=gnuplot GPL-2 bitmap? ( free-noncomm )
The bulk of the package is free software, distributed under the
gnuplot
Ian Stakenvicius schrieb:
IE: - -'as-is' would be the generic as-is statement -
-'free-non-commercial' would be a free/unrestricted for
non-commercial use statement - -'free-unrestricted' would be a
statement of more or less public domain
- -..etc...
Why not directly use the FSF freedoms:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 24/09/12 06:46 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 3:02 AM, Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org
wrote:
Unfortunately, it's not clear from our documentation if the
LICENSE variable applies to the source tarball or to the files
that the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 24/09/12 09:15 AM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
Ian Stakenvicius schrieb:
IE: - -'as-is' would be the generic as-is statement -
-'free-non-commercial' would be a free/unrestricted for
non-commercial use statement -
On Mon, 24 Sep 2012, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
Ian Stakenvicius schrieb:
IE: - -'as-is' would be the generic as-is statement -
-'free-non-commercial' would be a free/unrestricted for
non-commercial use statement - -'free-unrestricted' would be a
statement of more or less public
On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 6:56 AM, Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote:
So, either we should only mark free software with the as-is label.
Then it might help if the text was clarified as in the patch below.
Or we continue marking random non-free stuff with as-is. Then we
should IMHO remove
On Sun, 23 Sep 2012, Rich Freeman wrote:
Well, I can see legal problems any time you take a thousand things
that all have a bunch of non-identical, informal licenses and treat
them as the same. However, I don't think it is practical to do
otherwise.
I agree. Creating hundreds of license
On 09/23/2012 02:04 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
If we really decide to move things to a new license file, then I'd
rather avoid the name as-is because it is partly the reason for the
confusion.
I agree on that. I saw it more than once that people use as-is for the
license, just because there is
On Sun, 23 Sep 2012, hasufell wrote:
If we really decide to move things to a new license file, then I'd
rather avoid the name as-is because it is partly the reason for
the confusion.
I agree on that. I saw it more than once that people use as-is for
the license, just because there is an
On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote:
- net-misc/ntp: as-is looks fine as main license, although some
parts of the code are under different licenses like GPL (but I
haven't checked in detail what gets installed).
Uh, if we're distributing the sources, and
On Sun, 2012-09-23 at 23:37 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
- net-wireless/zd1201-firmware: No license in tarball or on homepage.
Ubuntu distributes it in their linux-firmware package with the following
LICENCE.zd1201 file:
The firmware was originally distributed by Zydas in their original
15 matches
Mail list logo
