Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Installing COPYING or LICENSE files
On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 03:57:55PM +0100, Henrik Brix Andersen wrote: > On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 12:20:39PM +0100, Harald van Dijk wrote: > > iputils doesn't do a make install, and if it did, it would still be > > reasonable if that didn't copy the license, since the users who run that > > themselves don't need it. > > I don't really see the big difference (regarding this issue) in > manually installing a package or using Gentoo Portage for installing > it? > > Why would people who install it via a script in Gentoo Portage want > the useless files installed - when they wouldn't want them installed > when doing a manual install? Right, end users don't need them, regardless of package manager. But as I mentioned in my previous message, ebuilds are not only for end users. pgplxt6FcLO6R.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Installing COPYING or LICENSE files
On Tuesday 27 December 2005 08:08, Mike Frysinger wrote: > anyone who installs a program in portage already has a copy of the license > on their system ... $PORTDIR/licenses/ My point was that it is often not the license of the copyright holder, because the copyright notice included in many licenses names the author of a specific application. Carsten pgpDkHtnGULA0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Installing COPYING or LICENSE files
On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 12:20:39PM +0100, Harald van Dijk wrote: > iputils doesn't do a make install, and if it did, it would still be > reasonable if that didn't copy the license, since the users who run that > themselves don't need it. I don't really see the big difference (regarding this issue) in manually installing a package or using Gentoo Portage for installing it? Why would people who install it via a script in Gentoo Portage want the useless files installed - when they wouldn't want them installed when doing a manual install? Regards, Brix -- Henrik Brix Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Gentoo Metadistribution | Mobile computing herd pgpEzADs1tCOj.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Installing COPYING or LICENSE files
On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 12:32:25PM +0200, Petteri Räty wrote: > Harald van Dijk wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 01:01:10AM -0600, R Hill wrote: > > > >>>Removing these files and relying on LICENSE=foo in the ebuild could be > >>>seen as > >>>a copyright violation. There are lots of samples in /usr/src/licenses that > >>>aren't generic, but include a copyright notice naming the authors of a > >>>particular piece of software, but it doesn't match with all packages under > >>>this license of course. Take ZLIB as example. Since I'm not a lawyer I > >>>might > >>>be wrong, but me thinks it would make sense to ask one. > >> > >>AFAIK most licenses need to be included with the distribution of the > >>source, not > >>installed on the system after compilation. But I could be wrong too. > > > > > > There are exceptions, a popular one being BSD. > > > > * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright > > * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the > > * documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. > > > > As a quick example, iputils is BSD-licensed and does not install or > > reproduce its license, so does this cause problems for iputils binpkgs? > > We are not redistributing anything in binary form when installing > programs. Of course, but we are redistributing programs in binary form in exactly the same state as when installing them, via stages and live/packagecds. > If the license should be > installed, shouldn't the upstream make install take care of it then? iputils doesn't do a make install, and if it did, it would still be reasonable if that didn't copy the license, since the users who run that themselves don't need it. pgpdVplq0zAmF.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Installing COPYING or LICENSE files
Harald van Dijk wrote: > On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 01:01:10AM -0600, R Hill wrote: > >>>Removing these files and relying on LICENSE=foo in the ebuild could be seen >>>as >>>a copyright violation. There are lots of samples in /usr/src/licenses that >>>aren't generic, but include a copyright notice naming the authors of a >>>particular piece of software, but it doesn't match with all packages under >>>this license of course. Take ZLIB as example. Since I'm not a lawyer I might >>>be wrong, but me thinks it would make sense to ask one. >> >>AFAIK most licenses need to be included with the distribution of the source, >>not >>installed on the system after compilation. But I could be wrong too. > > > There are exceptions, a popular one being BSD. > > * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright > * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the > * documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. > > As a quick example, iputils is BSD-licensed and does not install or > reproduce its license, so does this cause problems for iputils binpkgs? We are not redistributing anything in binary form when installing programs. This all happens on the users computers. We are distributing upstream source tarballs verbatim of course. If the license should be installed, shouldn't the upstream make install take care of it then? Regards, Petteri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Installing COPYING or LICENSE files
On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 01:01:10AM -0600, R Hill wrote: > > Removing these files and relying on LICENSE=foo in the ebuild could be seen > > as > > a copyright violation. There are lots of samples in /usr/src/licenses that > > aren't generic, but include a copyright notice naming the authors of a > > particular piece of software, but it doesn't match with all packages under > > this license of course. Take ZLIB as example. Since I'm not a lawyer I > > might > > be wrong, but me thinks it would make sense to ask one. > > AFAIK most licenses need to be included with the distribution of the source, > not > installed on the system after compilation. But I could be wrong too. There are exceptions, a popular one being BSD. * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the * documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. As a quick example, iputils is BSD-licensed and does not install or reproduce its license, so does this cause problems for iputils binpkgs? pgp6nvBCbR8Qu.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Installing COPYING or LICENSE files
On Tuesday 27 December 2005 02:23, Brian Harring wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 02:08:25AM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Tuesday 27 December 2005 02:01, R Hill wrote:
> > > AFAIK most licenses need to be included with the distribution of the
> > > source, not installed on the system after compilation. But I could be
> > > wrong too.
> >
> > anyone who installs a program in portage already has a copy of the
> > license on their system ... $PORTDIR/licenses/
>
> Assuming the tree is locally available (remote, or binpkg's used to
> generate images)...
>
> Lets put it this way; if ebuilds are specifically filtering it out on
> their own, nobody who wants the licenses install has them.
if the user has gone through lengths to cut down on filesize by cutting out
their portage tree, then chances are pretty solid that they are cutting out
things like /usr/share/{doc,man,info} as well which means even if an ebuild
installed the file, it'd be cut anyways from the final filesystem
> If they're installed via the ebuild, and removed via INSTALL_MASK,
> everybody can get what they want. So why nuke by default?
because it's pointless duplication ... the case is either the file is
installed in both places, or not at all ... the people who trim their portage
tree but not /usr/share/doc probably consists of those who do not know how to
trim /usr/share/doc
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Installing COPYING or LICENSE files
On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 02:08:25AM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Tuesday 27 December 2005 02:01, R Hill wrote: > > AFAIK most licenses need to be included with the distribution of the > > source, not installed on the system after compilation. But I could be > > wrong too. > > anyone who installs a program in portage already has a copy of the license on > their system ... $PORTDIR/licenses/ Assuming the tree is locally available (remote, or binpkg's used to generate images)... Lets put it this way; if ebuilds are specifically filtering it out on their own, nobody who wants the licenses install has them. If they're installed via the ebuild, and removed via INSTALL_MASK, everybody can get what they want. So why nuke by default? ~harring pgpFZGuIgYNZb.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Installing COPYING or LICENSE files
On Tuesday 27 December 2005 02:01, R Hill wrote: > AFAIK most licenses need to be included with the distribution of the > source, not installed on the system after compilation. But I could be > wrong too. anyone who installs a program in portage already has a copy of the license on their system ... $PORTDIR/licenses/ -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: Installing COPYING or LICENSE files
Carsten Lohrke wrote: > On Monday 26 December 2005 14:57, Drake Wyrm wrote: >> You're going to be hard-pressed to get any kind of consensus on this >> issue. Many dev seems to feel that the license belongs there. In some >> cases the COPYING, LICENSE, and/or INSTALL files contain, not boilerplate >> drivel, but actually unique, useful information. I found that as well, and made sure to only bug people about generic files. In most of those cases COPYING/LICENSE is generic while INSTALL was custom. > Removing these files and relying on LICENSE=foo in the ebuild could be seen > as > a copyright violation. There are lots of samples in /usr/src/licenses that > aren't generic, but include a copyright notice naming the authors of a > particular piece of software, but it doesn't match with all packages under > this license of course. Take ZLIB as example. Since I'm not a lawyer I might > be wrong, but me thinks it would make sense to ask one. AFAIK most licenses need to be included with the distribution of the source, not installed on the system after compilation. But I could be wrong too. --de. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
